Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 1 of 74

Exhibit 1

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 2 of 74

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

THE ANDREW GOODMAN FOUNDATION AND AMANDA SCOTT,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 19-cv-955

MARGE BOSTELMANN, JULIE M. GLANCEY, ANN S. JACOBS, DEAN KNUDSON, ROBERT F. SPINDELL, JR., and MARK L. THOMSEN, in their official capacities as Wisconsin Elections Commissioners, Defendants.

January 15, 2020

EXPERT REPORT: INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION

ALLAN J. LICHTMAN Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 3 of 74

I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

I have been asked to provide an opinion as to whether the voting identification requirements for college and university students enacted by the Wisconsin State Legislature in 2011 as part of Act 23 were intended to discriminate against young voters and would-be voters. As discussed below, my opinion in this matter is based on historical, political, and statistical information gathered and reviewed in my capacity as an expert in political history, political analysis, and historical and statistical methodology. My opinion and observations are provided from that perspective and are not intended to provide a legal conclusion but, rather, to provide the Court with facts and context for the ultimate legal determination on intent that it must make. My fee in this matter is $500 per hour.

II. QUALIFICATIONS

This study draws on my experience serving as an expert in voting rights litigation and my expertise in political history, political analysis, and historical and statistical methodology. I am a Distinguished Professor of History at American University in Washington, D.C., where I have been employed for 45 years. Formerly, I served as Chair of the History Department and Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at American University. I received my BA in History from Brandeis University in 1967 and my Ph.D. in History from Harvard University in 1973, with a specialty in the mathematical analysis of historical data.

I am the author of numerous scholarly works on quantitative methodology in social science. This scholarship includes articles in such academic journals as Political Methodology, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, International Journal of Forecasting, and Social Science History. In addition, I have coauthored Ecological Inference with Dr. Laura Langbein, a standard text on the analysis of social science data, including political information. I have published articles on the application of social science analysis to civil rights issues. This work includes articles in such journals as Journal of Law and Politics, La Raza Law Journal, Evaluation Review, Journal of Legal Studies, and National Law Journal. My scholarship also includes the use of quantitative and qualitative methods to conduct contemporary and historical studies, published in academic journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, American Historical Review, International Journal of Forecasting, International Journal of Information Systems & Social Change, and Journal of Social History.

Quantitative and historical analyses also ground my books, including, Prejudice and the Old Politics: The Presidential Election of 1928, The Thirteen Keys to the Presidency (co-authored with Ken DeCell), The Keys to the White House, White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement, and FDR and the Jews (co-authored with Richard Breitman). My most recent books are The Case for Impeachment and The Embattled Vote in America: From the Founding to the Present. This latter book, published in September 2018 by Harvard University Press, examines the history and current status of voting rights in America.

1 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 4 of 74

My book White Protestant Nation was one of five finalists for the National Book Critics Circle Award for the best general nonfiction book published in America. My book FDR and the Jews was published under the Belknap Imprint of the Harvard University Press, reserved for works of special significance and lasting impact. This book was an editor’s choice book of the New York Times in 2013, the winner of the most prestigious prize in American Jewish Studies, the National Jewish Book Award, and a finalist for Los Angeles Times Book Prize in history. My book The Case for Impeachment was an independent bookstore bestseller. In 2018, I was the winner of the Alfred Nelson Marquis Life Time Achievement Award for the top 5% of persons included in Marquis WHO’S WHO.

I have worked as a consultant or expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in more than 90 voting and civil rights cases, providing testimony on several issues, including on intentional discrimination in the adoption of state redistricting plans and photo identification laws. My work includes more than a dozen cases for the United States Department of Justice and cases for many civil rights organizations. I have also worked as a consultant or expert witness numerous times for state and local jurisdictions. In the U. S. Supreme Court case, League of United Latin Am. Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy authoritatively cited my statistical work.

I previously testified on the issue of intentional discrimination in One Wis. Inst. v. Nichol, 186 F. Supp. 3d 958 (2016). I have also testified on the issue of intentional discrimination in: Anne Harding v. County of Dallas, Texas, No. 3:15-cv-00131-D (N.D. Tex. 2018), Terrebonne Parish Branch NAACP v. Jindal, 274 F. Supp. 3d 395 (M.D. La. 2017), Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Reagan, 329 F. Supp. 3d 824 (D. Ariz. 2018), Lee v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 188 F. Supp. 3d 577 (E.D. Va. 2016), N. C. NAACP v. McCrory, 182 F. Supp. 3d 320 (M.D.N.C. 2016), Perez v. Texas, 891 F. Supp. 2d 808 (W.D. Tex. 2012), Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627 (S.D. Tex. 2014), State of Texas v. United States and Eric H. Holder, 887 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012), and Comm. for a Fair and Balanced Map, et al. v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 835 F. Supp, 2d 563 (N.D. I11. 2011).

I have enclosed an updated CV and a table of cases in which I have provided written or oral testimony in Appendix A to this report.

III. EVIDENCE, METHODOLOGY, AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS

This report and analysis draw upon standard sources in historical and social scientific analysis. These include scholarly books, articles, and reports; newspaper and other journalistic articles; demographic and socio-economic information; election returns; voter registration and turnout data; court opinions, briefs, and reports; government and organizational documents; and scientific surveys and studies. These sources of information will be used both for analyses within Wisconsin and for comparisons with other states. In addition, I draw upon information from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board’s (GAB) database. The GAB was the regulatory agency in Wisconsin that administered and enforced Wisconsin’s election laws during the timeframe

2 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 5 of 74

in which Act 23 was enacted. The GAB is non-partisan and, in an article entitled “America’s Top Model: The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board,” election law expert and Robert M. Duncan/Jones Day Designated Professor of Law at Ohio State University Law School, Daniel P. Tokaji said, “[t]here is one conspicuous exception to the partisan character of state election administration: Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board (GAB).” It is “unique among state election administration bodies in the United States.”1

The purpose of this report is not to make legal conclusions, but to examine substantive issues with respect to discriminatory intent. Nevertheless, the report closely follows the methodological guidelines of the United States Supreme Court in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). In Arlington Heights, the Court focused on five distinct factors that are relevant to ascertaining intentional discrimination: (1) discriminatory impact; (2) historical background; (3) the sequence of events leading up to the challenged action; (4) procedural or substantive deviations from the normal decision-making process; and (5) contemporaneous viewpoints expressed by the decision-makers. This framework is consistent with standard historical methodology in examining the issue of intent. It is consistent with my substantive scholarship and my theoretical work as well (see Section II, above).

My major opinions are summarized below:

• The political and historical context in which the restrictions on student photo IDs were enacted, from 2000 to 2008, was one in which student and young voting trended strongly Democratic, nationwide and in Wisconsin, threatening Republican prospects.

• The student ID restrictions included in Act 23 are the harshest restrictions on student IDs of any photo ID law in the nation. They are also harsher than Act 23’s restrictions on photo IDs generally, as no such restrictions apply to any other form of authorized identification under Act 23.

• Though the passage of the student voter ID restrictions did not require express violation of the legislative process given the control held by the Republican majority, there were procedural abnormalities present, including: (1) quick passage of the legislation, (2) a lack of substantive debate, and (3) a lack of hearings and public input as compared to similar bills in the past.

• Substantive deviations are also present, including, most notably, the inclusion of the restrictions solely on students IDs and not on any other authorized form of ID, particularly where the restrictions directly undermined the effectiveness of adding students IDs to the list of authorized IDs, a fact of which the legislature was aware at the time the restrictions were passed.

1 Daniel P. Tokaji, “America’s Top Model: The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board,” UC Irvine Law Review, 3 (2013): 576.

3 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 6 of 74

• Other substantive deviations include the failure of the legislature to include or consider any amendments which would have ameliorated the burdens of Act 23 on students specifically or the population more generally, as well as the inclusion of the photo voter ID law and student ID restrictions with and unprecedented spate of restrictive voting legislation.

• The Republican majority adopted the student ID restrictions despite evidence that student voter impersonation was not a problem in Wisconsin and that these restrictions would disproportionately burden young voters.

• In 2016 when student photo IDs were first in effect for a statewide general election, student and young person turnout in Wisconsin declined sharply from 2012 despite a nationwide increase in the turnout of these voter groups. The decline in young person turnout in Wisconsin from 2012 to 2016 far exceeded the modest decline in turnout among older voters.

• The sharp turnout differential for young persons aged 18-24 between Wisconsin and the nation between the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016 was not manifest for the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, when Wisconsin’s restrictive student identification requirements were not in effect.

• There is rare direct evidence from Republican backers of Assembly Bill 7 (Act 23’s originating legislation) that their intent was to achieve partisan advantage by restricting student voting among other base Democratic voters.

• Republicans in the state legislature lacked persuasive justification.

• Based on a large body of evidence, and following the Arlington Heights template and standard historical methodology, I conclude from my 50 years of experience as a historian of American politics and my involvement as an expert witness in at least one hundred voting rights cases that the majority Republicans deliberately and knowingly sought to achieve partisan advantage by onerous restrictions on student photo IDs.

4 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 7 of 74

IV. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE PASSAGE OF THE STUDENT ID RESTRICTIONS

A. Wisconsin Election Performance Prior To 2011 And The Rise of Student And Young Person Opposition to Republican Candidates

In 2011, the majority-Republican Wisconsin General Assembly and Republican governor enacted Assembly Bill 7 (codified as Act 23), a strict photo voter ID law that contains the most restrictive student identification requirements in the nation through the present day.

Act 23 limited the acceptable forms of photo ID for voting to: A Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) driver’s license or photo identification; a military ID card; and a U.S. passport book or card, all of which must be unexpired or, if expired, expired after the date of the most recent general election. Also acceptable are: a naturalization certificate issued no earlier than two years before the date of the election; DOT receipts for licenses and ID cards (acceptable for 45 days); a Wisconsin DMV ID Petition Process Photo Receipt (acceptable for 180 days); a tribal ID that is either unexpired or has no expiration date; a U.S. Veteran’s Affairs ID that is either unexpired or has no expiration date; or a photo identification card issued by a Wisconsin accredited university or college, or technical college. Of importance here, to vote utilizing such a student ID, the voter must present a student ID that includes:

. Date of issuance; . Signature of student; . An expiration date no later than two years after date of issuance (and the card must not be expired); . The ID card must also be accompanied by a separate document that proves current enrollment.

Wis. Stat. § 5.02(6m).

Act 23⸺including the student ID restrictions⸺is a “strict” photo identification law, meaning that with some minor exceptions voters who lack an authorized photo ID have no alternative means for casting a vote that will be counted in an election. This is in sharp contrast to many other states with photo identification laws, where, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, voters without an acceptable photo identification may still be able to cast a counted ballot by signing an affidavit of identity, having poll workers attest to the voter’s identity, or by signing a ‘reasonable impediment’ affidavit which indicates one of various reasons why the voter does not possess an authorized photo ID. In other states, voters lacking an acceptable photo ID may vote a provisional ballot which can then be authorized to count if election officials determine (via a signature check or other verification) the voter was eligible and registered, and therefore the provisional ballot should

5 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 8 of 74

be counted. The voter does not need to take any additional action in these circumstances for their 2 provisional ballot to count.

In contrast, in strict photo identification states like Wisconsin, “voters without acceptable identification must vote on a provisional ballot and also take additional steps after Election Day for it to be counted.”3 In Wisconsin voters must present an acceptable photo ID “to the poll workers by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day or the municipal clerk by 4:00 p.m. of the Friday following the election.”4

Not only is Wisconsin’s photo ID requirement strict generally, but as indicated in Table 1, no other state with a photo identification law has student identification restrictions that match the stringent student ID restrictions of Act 23 in Wisconsin. As indicated in Table 1, most states simply require the presentation of a student identification card with a photo. And even in North Carolina, the state that after Wisconsin has the next the most stringent restrictions for student photo IDs in the country, the law provides for a “reasonable impediment” exception. This is not a feature of the Wisconsin photo ID law or student ID restrictions. On December 31, 2019, a federal district court granted a motion for preliminary injunction, staying implementation of the North Carolina law.5

This section further examines the sequence of events leading to the adoption of the student ID restrictions in Wisconsin in 2011 and the current status of this voting prerequisite and other relevant laws. Critical to this sequence is the rising opposition to Republican candidates by students and young people as well as the outstanding performance of Wisconsin elections prior to the passage of the student ID restrictions. As indicated by the national survey results in Table 2 and Chart 1, students voted 46 percent for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000, compared to 42 percent for Republican candidate George W. Bush, for a Democratic lead of 4 percentage points and 9.5 percent. In 2004, students voted 53 percent for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, compared to 37 percent for Republican candidate George W. Bush, for an expanded Democratic lead of 16 percentage points and 43.2 percent. The Democratic vote among students in 2008, the presidential election most proximate to the enactment of Act 23 in 2011, soared to become nearly double the Republican vote. In 2008, students voted 62 percent for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, compared to 32 percent for Republican candidate John McCain, for a Democratic lead of 30 percentage points and 93.8 percent.

According to the U.S. Census, American Community Survey estimates for 2010, 44.4 percent of persons aged 18-24 in Wisconsin were enrolled in colleges and universities. There is no specific data for persons aged 25-29 in Wisconsin, but national data from the National Center for

2 National Conference Of State Legislatures, Voter Identification Requirements, http://www.ncsl.org/Research/Elections-And-Campaigns/Voter-Id.Aspx (Emphasis Added). 3 Ibid. 4 Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, “Provisional Voting,” https://elections.wi.gov/clerks/provisional-ballots. 5 NAACP V. Cooper, No. 1:18-cv-01034 (M.D.N.C), Memorandum Opinion, Order, and Preliminary Injunction.

6 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 9 of 74

Educational Statistics (NCES) indicates that 14.5 percent of this age group nationally were enrolled in colleges and universities in 2011.6

TABLE 1 STUDENT ID REQUIREMENTS IN STATES OTHER THAN WISCONSIN

STATE STUDENT ID REQUIREMENT

AL Act No. 2011-673: “A valid student or employee identification card issued by a public or private college, university, or postgraduate technical or professional school located within the state, provided that such identification card includes a photograph of the elector.” AR Constitution Amendment 51, § 13, b(1)(A): “(a) Shows the name of the person to whom the document or identification card was issued; (b) Shows a photograph of the person to whom the document or identification card was issued; (c) Is issued by the United States, the State of Arkansas, or an accredited postsecondary educational institution in the State of Arkansas.” FL Statute 101.043: “The clerk or inspector shall require each elector, upon entering the polling place, to present one of the following current and valid picture identifications … 6. Student identification … If the picture identification does not contain the signature of the elector, an additional identification that provides the elector’s signature shall be required. The address appearing on the identification presented by the elector may not be used as the basis to confirm an elector’s legal residence or otherwise challenge an elector’s legal residence.” ID Statute: Title 34, Ch. 11, 34-1113: “The personal identification that may be presented shall be one (1) of the following … (4) A current student identification card, including a photograph, issued by a high school or an accredited institution of higher education, including a university, college or technical school, located within the state of Idaho.” IN Indiana Secretary of State, https://www.in.gov/sos.elections/2401.htm: “A student ID from an Indiana State school may only be used if it meets all of the 4 criteria specified above” “1. Display your photo. 2. Display your name, and the name must conform to your voter registration record. Conform does not mean identical. 3. Display an expiration date and either be current or have expired sometime after the date of the last General Election. 4. Be issued by the State of Indiana or the U.S. government.” KS Statute 25-2908, (h)(1): “The following forms of identification shall be valid if the identification contains the name and photograph of the voter and has not expired … (G)

6 U.S. Census, American Community Survey, School Enrollment, Wisconsin, 1-Year Estimates 2010, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_S1401&prodType=ta ble; NCES, 2011, “Percentage of the population 3 to 34 years old enrolled in school, by sex, race/ethnicity, and age: Selected years, 1980 through 2010,”p. 21, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012001.pdf.

7 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 10 of 74

a student identification card issued by an accredited postsecondary institution of education in the state of Kansas.” LA RS-18:562: “(2) Each applicant shall identify himself, in the presence and view of the bystanders, and present to the commissioners a Louisiana driver’s license, a Louisiana special identification card issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1321, or other generally recognized picture identification card that contains the name and signature of the applicant.” MI Michigan Department of State, Bureau of Elections, https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Notice_To_Voters_209297_7.pdf. “Voters can satisfy the ID requirement by showing a Michigan driver’s license or a Michigan personal identification card. Voters who do not possess either document may show any of the following forms of picture ID as long as it is current … Student identification with photo from a high school or an accredited institution of higher education.” MS MS § 23-15-563: “Shall be required to identify himself or herself to an election manager or the registrar by presenting current and valid photo identification before such person shall be allowed to vote … A current and valid student identification card, containing a photograph of the elector, issued by any accredited college, university or community or junior college in the State of Mississippi.” NC SESSION LAW 2018-144, amended by HB 646: “The State Board shall approve the use of student identification cards issued by a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina, a community college, as defined in G.S. 115D-2(2), or eligible private postsecondary institution as defined in G.S. 116-280(3) for voting identification under G.S. 163A-1145.1 if … The identification cards are issued after an enrollment or other process that includes one or more methods of confirming the identity of the student … The cards issued by the university or college on or after January 1, 2021, contain a date of expiration … The university or college complies with any other reasonable security measures determined by the State Board to be necessary for the protection and security of the student identification process.” RI Statute: § 17-19-24.2: “For purposes of this section, proof of identity shall be valid if unexpired or expired no more than six (6) months prior to voting, and shall include … Identification card issued by a United States educational institution.” SD Statute: § 12-18-6.1: “The personal identification that may be presented shall be either … A current student identification card, including a picture, issued by a high school or an accredited institution of higher education, including a university, college, or technical school, located within the State of South Dakota.” VA Statute: § 24.2-643(B): “The officer shall ask the voter to present any one of the following forms of identification … Any valid student identification card containing a photograph of the voter and issued by any institution of higher education located in the Commonwealth or any private school located in the Commonwealth;”

8 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 11 of 74

TABLE 2 COLLEGE STUDENTS REPORTED VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, 2000 TO 2008

Presidential % Of Students Percentage Point Percent Candidate For Candidate Difference Democrat- Difference Democrat- Republican Candidate Republican Candidate

2000 Gore (D) 46% +4 Percentage Points +9.5 Percent 2000 Bush (R) 42%

2004 Kerry (D) 53% +16 Percentage Points +43.2 Percent 2004 Bush (R) 37%

2008 Obama (D) 62% +30 Percentage Points +93.8 Percent 2008 Bush (R) 32%

Source: “2009 Survey of America’s College Students,” Conducted on Behalf of The Panetta Institute For Public Policy, by Hart Research Associates, p. 13, http://www.panettainstitute.org/wp- content/uploads/survey-2009.pdf, N=1,023.

9 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 12 of 74

CHART 1 COLLEGE STUDENTS REPORTED VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, 2000 TO 2008, DIFFERENCE IN SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES PERCENTAGE POINT AND PERCENT

100.0% 93.8% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 43.2%

40.0% 30.0% 30.0% 16.0% 20.0% 9.5% 10.0% 4.0% 0.0% 2000 ELECTION 2004 ELECTION 2008 ELECTION

% POINT DIFF % DIFF

10 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 13 of 74

Exit poll data specific to Wisconsin demonstrates a similar trend in rising opposition to Republican candidates by young Americans aged 18 to 29. As indicated above, many of these young persons are college students. The Wisconsin exit poll results in Table 3 and Chart 2 indicate that young people in Wisconsin voted 46 percent for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000, compared to 42 percent for Republican candidate George W. Bush, for a Democratic lead of 4 percentage points and 9.5 percent. In 2004, young people in Wisconsin voted 57 percent for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, compared to 41 percent for Republican candidate George W. Bush, for an expanded Democratic lead of 16 percentage points and 30 percent. The Democratic vote among students in 2008, the presidential election most proximate to the enactment of Act 23 in 2011, soared to become nearly double the Republican vote. In 2008, students in Wisconsin voted 64 percent for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, compared to 35 percent for Republican candidate John McCain, for a Democratic lead of 29 percentage points and 82.9 percent.

In addition, in elections prior to 2011, Wisconsin was a national leader in voter turnout. As indicated in Chart 3, based on calculations from the United States Election Project, 7 in each presidential general election year from 2000 to 2008 the percentage of potentially eligible adult citizens in Wisconsin participating in elections far exceeded national averages. In each of those presidential election years, Wisconsin ranked among the top three states in voter turnout. Similarly, Wisconsin was a national leader in the turnout of young persons aged 18 to 24. As indicated in Chart 4, in each presidential general election year from 2000 to 2008 the percentage of potentially eligible adult citizens aged 18 to 24 in Wisconsin participating in the elections far exceeded national averages.

Similarly, in years prior to 2011, Wisconsin achieved an exemplary record in the administration of elections. In 2008 and 2010 the Pew Charitable Trusts ranked states on 17 indices of electoral performance. In 2008 Wisconsin ranked second best among all states and in 2010 it ranked fourth best.8 A Big Ten Battleground Poll following the 2008 election found that voters in Wisconsin were more satisfied with their voting experience than voters in other states. Poll results demonstrated that 90 percent of Wisconsin voters were very satisfied with their voting experience compared to 85 percent in other Big Ten states, a difference that is statistically significant at the stringent .01 level. Only 2 percent of Wisconsin voters were “not too satisfied” or “not satisfied at all.”9

7 United States Election Project, Voter Turnout, http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout- data. 8 Pew Charitable Trusts, Elections Performance Index, State Rankings, Wisconsin, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2014/elections-performance-index#state-WI. 9 For poll results see Barry C. Burden, Wisconsin Voter Experiences in the 2008 General Election,” http://electionadmin.wisc.edu/btpsummary.pdf.

11 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 14 of 74

TABLE 3 PERSONS AGED 18-29, REPORTED VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, WISCONSIN 2000 TO 2008

Presidential % Of 18-29 Ages Percentage Point Percent Difference Candidate Voters For Difference Democrat- Democrat-Republican Republican Candidate Candidate

2000 Gore (D) 46% +2 Percentage points +9.5 Percent 2000 Bush (R) 44%

2004 Kerry (D) 57% +16 Percentage Points +39.0 Percent 2004 Bush (R) 41%

2008 Obama (D) 64% +29 Percentage Points +82.9 Percent 2008 Bush (R) 35%

Source: Edison Research, Exit Polls for Wisconsin, 2000-2008, https://www.cbsnews.com/campaign2000results/election/; https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/WI/P/00/epolls.0.html; https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=WIP00p1. N=1,144 (2000), 2,321 (2004),N=2,545.

12 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 15 of 74

CHART 2 VOTERS AGE 18-29, REPORTED VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, 2000 TO 2008, DIFFERENCE IN SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES PERCENTAGE POINT AND PERCENT

90.0% 82.9%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0% 39.0% 40.0% 29.0% 30.0% 16.0% 20.0% 9.5% 10.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2000 ELECTION 2004 ELECTION 2008 ELECTION

% POINT DIFF % DIFF

13 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 16 of 74

CHART 3 PERCENT OF ELIGIBLE ADULTS TURNING OUT TO VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, WISCONSIN COMPARED TO THE UNITED STATES, 2000-2008

80.0% 74.8% 72.4% 67.6% 70.0% 61.6% 60.1% 60.0% 54.2%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% 2000 2004 2008

US WISCONSIN

14 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 17 of 74

CHART 4 PERCENT OF ELIGIBLE ADULTS AGED 18 TO 24 TURNING OUT TO VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, WISCONSIN COMPARED TO THE UNITED STATES, 2000-2008

70.0% 63.0%

60.0% 57.5%

50.8% 48.5% 50.0% 46.7%

40.0% 36.1%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% 2000 2004 2008

US WISCONSIN

15 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 18 of 74

B. Republican Enactments For Partisan Advantage Under The Guise Of Voter Fraud

The effort to adopt a photo voter ID bill and other measures restricting voting in Wisconsin began prior to 2011, extend back nearly a decade. Of critical importance in understanding the 2011 legislation are efforts by Republicans to enact a photo voter ID bill after John Kerry defeated George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election in Wisconsin. In the wake of Kerry’s Wisconsin victory, Republicans charged that the election in Wisconsin had been fraught with voter fraud.10 Immediately after the election Republican Assembly Speaker John Gard charged that Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett “has got to be embarrassed about what happened in Milwaukee. You’ve got thousands of addresses they know don’t exist.” The Speaker said that, “Democrats and Republicans alike should be concerned about the incredible problems we had across this state.”11

Yet even before investigators for the U.S. Attorney and FBI had the opportunity to confirm or refute charges of rampant fraud, Republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature pushed ahead and passed a photo voter ID bill on June 24, 2005. Democratic Governor Jim Doyle vetoed the legislation on August 12, 2005.12

By the end of 2005 investigators had debunked charges of widespread voter fraud in the 2004 presidential election in Wisconsin and voter impersonation in particular. In a letter to Rick Riley, Executive Director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, U.S. Attorney Steven N. Biskupic reported that all nine referrals of alleged double voting in Milwaukee and in other states had been found to be of no merit. Six of the nine individuals named did not vote in Milwaukee, and the other three only voted in Milwaukee.13 Ultimately in 2005 only fourteen out of 2.9 million voters in the 2004 general election were charged with voter fraud. None involved voter impersonation at the polls, the only type of voter fraud targeted by voter identification laws generally and none involved student voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud targeted by the student ID restrictions. Ten of the fourteen cases involved illegal voting by felons and the remaining four involved double voting. None of the double-voting cases resulted in a conviction.14 Nonetheless, Republicans in the State Legislature continued their push for photo voter ID requirements. In March 2006 the State Legislature passed Assembly Joint Resolution 36, a constitutional amendment that required

10 In 2003 Republicans Had Pushed Through The Legislature A Voter Photo ID Bill That The Governor Successfully Vetoed. Government Accountability Board, “Brief History Of Recent Voter ID Legislation In Wisconsin,” https://elections.wi.gov/Node/1590. 11 Steve Schultze, “GOP Wants To Tighten Voter Laws,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4 November 2004, http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270231/posts. 12 Wisconsin State Legislature, 2005-2006, Senate Bill 42, http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/Proposals/Sb42. 13 Letter From Steven N. Biskupic (By Richard G. Frohling, Deputy Criminal Chief & District Election Officer) To Rick Riley, Executive Dir. Of Republican Party Of Wis., Aug.22, 2005, http://www.Wispolitics.Com/1006/050822dblvoting.pdf. 14 Steven H. Huefner, Daniel P. Tokaji, Edward B. Foley, and Nathan A. Cemenska, From Registration To Recounts: The Election Ecosystems Of Five Midwestern States (The Ohio State University Moritz College Of Law: 2007), p. 121, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/projects/registration-to-recounts/book.pdf.

16 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 19 of 74

a photo ID for voting.15 However, to take effect it needed to pass in another session and then be passed by the voters, which did not occur.16

The next sequence of events leading to Wisconsin’s adoption of measures limiting access to voting begins in 2008 when Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defeated Republican candidate John McCain in Wisconsin. Buoyed by a well-funded concerted state-level electoral operation in 2010, Republicans made sweeping gains across the nation in state legislative and gubernatorial elections. The GOP picked up a net of 6 governorships and 680 state legislative seats.17 Faced with the political realities described above, the Republican majority in 2011 adopted a new strict voter identification law that included the student ID restrictions listed above.

The student photo ID requirements were part of at least fifteen enactments by the Republican majority in the Wisconsin state legislature passed between 2011 and 2013 that restricted access to voting and registration. For example, in addition to Act 23’s photo voter ID restrictions, the law reduced early voting by large margins, increased residency requirements for voting, and eliminated straight ticket voting. Similarly, other acts placed restrictions on absentee balloting (2011 Wis. Act 75, 227), eliminated the requirement that special registration deputies be appointed at public high schools (2011 Wis. Act. 240), overturned an ordinance in Madison that required landlords to provide voter registration forms to new tenants (2013 Wis. Act 76), changed requirements to observation areas at the polls (2013 Wis. Act 177), required proof of residency for overseas and military voters (2013 Wis. Act 182), and eliminated weekend and evening early voting (2013 Wis. Act 146). These fifteen measures⸺including the student ID restrictions⸺cannot be justified by any objective change in the occurrence of voter fraud or in the administration of elections in Wisconsin. To the contrary, as explained, the system was functioning extremely well with essentially no voter impersonation, high turnout rates overall and among young people, and efficient administration of elections. The only change was unified Republican control over government that enabled the party to enact and implement legislation that politically benefitted Republicans⸺such as the student ID restrictions⸺regardless of Democratic opposition. Wisconsin’s electoral system was not broken and in need of repair in 2011. As such, justifications to that effect for the student ID restrictions, e.g., confidence and curbing voter fraud, are tenuous.

Wisconsin had not experienced problems with voter impersonation prior to the photo voter ID law’s passage in 2011. As indicated in the discussion of the 2004 election above, the lack of documented cases of voter impersonation was not for a lack of effort to uncover such fraud. According to a 2007 report by researchers at the Ohio State University Law School that examined

15 Wisconsin State Legislature, 2005-2006, Assembly Joint Resolution 36, http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/Proposals/Ajr36. 16 Fair Elections Wisconsin, AJR 36, http://www.fairelectionswi.com/Legislation/Leg2005-6.Html. 17 “2010 Gubernatorial Election Results,” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/2010_gubernatorial_electoral_results ;Jeremy P. Jacobs, “Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats,” Hotline, https://web.archive.org/web/20121028132627/http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/11/devastation- gop.php.

17 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 20 of 74

voter fraud in Wisconsin and four other Midwestern states, “[t]here are few states in which allegations of voter fraud have received greater scrutiny than Wisconsin⸺and few municipalities in which they have received greater attention than the City of Milwaukee.” After discussion with the Milwaukee District Attorney and state and local election officials, the researchers found: “State prosecutors in Milwaukee have documented no case of anyone going to the polls pretending to be someone else, and no prosecutions on these grounds appear to have been brought anywhere in the state in recent memory. There is no evidence from which to conclude that Wisconsin faces a widespread or concerted effort to commit voting fraud . . . Election officials likewise expressed the view that it is very difficult to engage in voter fraud without getting caught.” 18 Of the Wisconsin voter fraud cases filed or even credibly alleged after this 2007 report and before 2011⸺i.e., the cases would be available to the legislature prior to the passage of the photo voter ID law and the student ID restrictions⸺several studies, including one by the conservative Heritage Foundation, show that none involved a charge of voter impersonation by students or anyone else. Moreover, none of the alleged cases of voter fraud in Wisconsin during this period involved allegations against students.19

In a December 2006 public report available to the legislature prior to the passage of the student ID restrictions, the United States Election Assistance Commission explained why voter impersonation at the polls is so rare. Among authorities in the field, the Commission found, “[m]any asserted that impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely type of fraud to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an inefficient method of influencing an election.”20 To cast a single vote at the polls, the impersonator would risk being apprehended if the impersonated voter has already voted or is recognizable to any local election official. This latter point is not insignificant. According to the 2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections (SPAE), a standard source for political analysis that was available at the time of the adoption of the 2011 photo voter ID law and the corresponding student ID restrictions, 19.5 percent of voters in Wisconsin (nearly 1 out of 5 voters) said that they knew the person who checked them in at the polls.

These new restrictions on voting in Wisconsin were challenged in several lawsuits. In November 2013, during the pendency of the litigation, the Wisconsin Assembly passed legislation

18 Steven H. Huefner, Daniel P. Tokaji, Edward B. Foley, and Nathan A. Cemenska, From Registration to Recounts: The Election Ecosystems of Five Midwestern States (The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law: 2007), pp. 120-121, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/projects/registration-to-recounts/book.pdf. 19 News21, “Election Fraud In America: Wisconsin,” Aug.21, 2012, http://Votingrights.News21.Com/Interactive/Election-Fraud-Database/Index.Html; Joshua Levitt, A Comprehensive Investigation of Voter Impersonation Finds 31 Credible Incidents Out of One Billion Ballots Cast, Washington Post, Aug.6, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive- investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/; Heritage Foundation, Voter Fraud Cases, Wisconsin, https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=WI&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24493. 20 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Additional Study, December 2006, p. 9, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/Initial_Review_and_Recommendations_for_Further_Study.pdf.

18 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 21 of 74

that would enable voters generally, and would have been particularly helpful to young, student voters, to vote a provisional ballot without an authorized photo ID if they attested to one of the following exceptions:

a. The elector considers himself or herself to be indigent and cannot obtain proof of identification without payment of a fee; b. The elector has a religious objection to being photographed; or c. The elector cannot obtain the documentation required to obtain proof of identification.

Opposition in the Republican controlled Senate Committee on Elections and Urban Affairs, killed the bill without floor debate or votes.21

It is also important to note that the original legislation on voter photo identification did not include a process of obtaining an authorized photo ID from the state free of charge. Wisconsin only provided a mechanism by which voters can obtain a “free” photo ID in 2014 after being forced to do so by a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that made no-cost documentation a condition of the implementation of the photo voter ID law. This was still not an easy process—it requires applicants to appear in person at a Department of Motor Vehicles office, present various forms of documentation, and go through a petition process if such documentation is not available at no cost.22

To further achieve partisan advantage the same state legislature that adopted Act 23 in 2011 also engaged in an extreme gerrymander of the state assembly to benefit Republicans that, as one federal district court found, “achieved the intended effect” and “secured for Republicans a lasting Assembly majority.”23 The gerrymandered map allocated “votes among the newly created districts in such a way that, in any likely electoral scenario, the number of Republican seats would not drop below 50% . . . .”24 In vacating and remanding this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that the 2011 plan did not constitute a partisan gerrymander but, rather, dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.25

The data reported in Table 4 indicates that as compared to the pre-2011 plan for the state assembly the 2011 plan substantially expanded the Republican advantage in the number of state assembly seats with Republican percentages greater than the statewide vote for governor. Under the pre-2011 plan there were 13 of 99 seats (13.1 percent) with a Republican percentage greater than the statewide vote for governor. The Republican advantage nearly doubled to 25 seats (25.3 percent) in the 2014 gubernatorial election under the 2011 plan and increased again in the 2018 gubernatorial election to

21 Wisconsin General Assembly,2013-2014, Assembly Bill 493, Https://docs.lwisconsin.gov/2013/Proposals/Reg/Asm/Bill/Ab493. 22Shawn Johnson and Laurel White, “As Voting Begins, A Look Back At The Fight Over Wisconsin's Voter ID Law,” Wisconsin Public Radio, Sept. 26, 2016, https://www.wpr.org/voting-begins-look-back-fight-over- wisconsins-voter-id-law; Wisconsin Department of Transportation, “Obtaining an Identification (ID) Card,” http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/license-drvs/how-to-apply/id-card.aspx. 23 Whitford v. Gill, 218 F.Supp.3d 837, 898 (W.D. Wis. 2016). 24 Id. 25 Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018).

19 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 22 of 74

29 seats (29.3 percent). In 2018 Republican governor candidate Scott Walker lost with 49.4% of the statewide vote, but Republicans still carried 63 of the state’s assembly districts, compared to 36 seats for Democrats.

The maps presented in Figure 1 provide additional evidence of the 2011 gerrymander. These maps show that as compared to the pre-2011 plan or the demonstration plan submitted by plaintiffs in the federal case, the 2011 plan reconfigures state assembly districts to provide an expanded advantage for Republicans. This context is important because it provides further evidence of the intent of Republicans in the state legislature to use their majority to obtain partisan advantage by the means available to them. The restrictive student photo identification requirements are one facet of this multi-faceted package of new laws.

TABLE 4 STATEWIDE GOVERNOR PERCENTAGE COMPARED TO ASSEMBLY SEATS, PRE- 2011 PLAN COMPARED TO 2011 PLAN

Election Seats More Seats More Republican Additional Republican Democratic Advantage Republican Advantage Than Statewide Than Statewide 2011 Compared to Vote Vote Pre-2011 Plan Pre-2011 Plan

2010 Governor 56 43 +13 Seats NA

2011 Plan

2014 Governor 62 37 +25 Seats +12 Seats

2018 Governor* 64 35 +29 Seats +16 Seats

* In 2018 Republican governor candidate Scott Walker lost with 49.4% of the statewide vote, but still carried 63 of the state’s assembly districts, compared to 36 seats for Democrats. Source: Analysis by Craig Gilbert, “New election data highlights the ongoing impact of 2011 GOP redistricting in Wisconsin,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 6, 2018, https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2018/12/06/wisconsin- gerrymandering-data-shows-stark-impact-redistricting/2219092002/.

20 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 23 of 74

FIGURE 1 DIFFERENCES IN DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN SEATS, PRE-2011 PLAN, DEMONSTRATION PLAN, AND 2011 PLAN26

26 Exhibits Submitted In Gill V. Whitford, Reported In Katelyn Ferral, “In Split Decision, Federal Judges Rule Wisconsin's Redistricting Law An Unconstitutional Gerrymander,” Capital Times, Nov. 21, 2016, Https://Madison.Com/Ct/News/Local/Govt-And-Politics/In-Split-Decision-Federal-Judges-Rule-Wisconsin-S- Redistricting-Law/Article_378cc57b-A0d7-5e7e-Bfaa-6b80e98e82c4.Html.

21 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 24 of 74

V. PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATIONS

Given unified Republican control of the legislature and governorship from 2011 to 2014, Republicans did not have to expressly violate procedural rules to enact the student ID restrictions. Nonetheless along with the many substantive changes in voting and registration analyzed above, procedural deviations occurred in the enactment of student voter ID restrictions.

The legislation that ultimately became Act 23 was introduced as companion bills in the State Senate and Assembly in 2011. It was Assembly Bill 7, first introduced in the General Assembly on January 27, 2011 that, as amended, eventually became codified as Act 23 after its passage on May 19, 2011. The original senate and assembly bills did not authorize any kind of student photo identification for voting.

The inclusion of student photo IDs in Assembly Bill 7 occurred some three months after the release of the bill’s first version, with the introduction of a substitute amendment in committee on May 3, 2011 that fundamentally altered the earlier version. The addition of student photo IDs came only after the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and the director and general counsel of the GAB objected strongly to the exclusion of such IDs. In its meeting on February 11, 2011 Board President Charles Pruitt noted, “The Board of Regents had taken a clear position on this legislation, calling on the authors to amend the legislation to allow student IDs to be one of the permitted forms of voter identification at the polling place. Should such an amendment be included, the Board would then have a neutral position on the underlying legislation . . . . The failure to include student IDs as an acceptable form of identification would have a serious and deleterious effect on the right of students to vote.”27

Then on March 10, 2011 the Board passed with only one dissenting vote a resolution calling for the inclusion of student IDs:

WHEREAS the aforementioned voter identification requirements are likely to disproportionately disenfranchise certain populations which may lack valid identification, including college students, who research has shown are unlikely to obtain new drivers licenses or photo IDs with their university address, or who may have recently relocated to a campus community prior to an election …

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents supports an amendment to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 to 2011 Senate Bill 6, amended by Senate Amendment 1, and to its companion legislation in the State Assembly that would include university student identification cards as an acceptable form of voter identification …

27 “Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System,” Feb.11, 2011, p. 5, https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/meeting_materials/2011/february/February-11,-2011-(Friday)-BOR- Minutes.pdf.

22 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 25 of 74

BE IT THEREFORE FINALLY RESOLVED that, in the absence of such amendments, the Board opposes Senate Substitute Amendment 1 to 2011 Senate Bill 6, amended by Senate Amendment 1, and the Assembly companion legislation.28

It is important to note that the Board in its resolution pointed to the fact that students are unlikely to possess or obtain other forms of authorized photo IDs. Then, in a May 3, 2011 letter to the Assembly Committee on Elections and Campaign Reform, Kevin Kennedy, Director and General Counsel of the GAB, warned of the inadequacy of proposed requirements for student photo identification. He stressed that although the legislature was considering modifications of its legislation to include student photo IDs, it had adopted criteria for such forms of identification such that “[p]resently no student identification card meets the standards proposed in the bill: current address, date of birth and signature of the student. It is highly unlikely that universities and colleges will adopt these standards because of student security concerns.”29

Kennedy added, “Similarly the elimination of the use of a certified list of addresses for on- campus students will only serve to deter voter participation by students. This is a demographic that has the lowest voter participation rate of all age groups. In order to cultivate engaged, active citizens, we need to facilitate voting among our youth rather than imposing artificial barriers to participation.”30

As noted above, the GAB is a non-partisan organization, highly recognized for its neutrality on election law issues, with its positions focusing solely on good policy and governance in this context.

The bottom line is that although the General Assembly added student IDs to the list of IDs authorized for voting, purportedly to address the concern that students would not be able to vote because they did not have access to the other authorized forms of ID, it did so in a form that was not currently accessible to students in Wisconsin, wholly undermining any purported purpose of making it easier for students to vote and, in effect, ensuring⸺knowingly⸺that it would not. In addition, it added a unique requirement for proof of enrollment, including the certification of citizenship for dorm lists, that further restricted the ability of students to use their photo IDs for voting.

28 “Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System,” Mar. 10, 2011, p. 36, https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/meeting_materials/2011/march_10/March-10,-2011-(Thursday)- BOR-Minutes.pdf. 29 Kevin J. Kennedy, Letter To Members Of The Assembly Committee On Elections And Campaign Reform, May 3, 2011, p. 1, https://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/publication/65/letter_to_assembly_elections_committee_5_3_11_pdf_18642. pdf. 30 Ibid., p. 2.

23 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 26 of 74

In his letter Director Kennedy also noted the lack of time for adequate review, vetting, and public input for the proposed bill as revised:

This draft was first available for review late on Friday of last week. There has been no time for the careful evaluation and vetting needed to ensure the best options for voters and election officials is enacted. There are numerous other provisions in the bill which will significantly alter the administration of elections and put additional stress on an already overburdened system. I urge you to give careful consideration to my suggestions and seek additional input from the public and local election officials before proceeding with this legislation.31

Republicans in the state legislature began serious consideration of Assembly Bill 7 only on May 11, with the bill passing just over a week later on May 19. This left little time for debate, discussion, and analysis recommended by Director Kennedy.

Examination of transcripts for State Assembly and State Senate sessions also indicate that there was very little debate on the bill, including the restrictions on student IDs, which affected the fundamental right to vote. For the most part Republicans in the legislature let Democrats express their opposition while very rarely engaging in substantive debate. Democratic State Senator Chris Larson explained during the debates over Act 23 that Republicans did not engage with the specifics of the Act and wanted to push through the bill as quickly as possible:

But I think that the thing that he said that hits me the most is about saying that we debated this ad nauseam because there wasn’t a debate. And I think we need to extend this, this arbitrary deadline of saying that we have to vote by said time period because the majority of the discussion happened on one side of the aisle . . . So there wasn’t a debate. To have a debate, you need to have both sides presenting their facts, presenting their arguments, actually discussing what’s going on. So I would -- I would say we have only started this debate because we have presented our side and we wait for the thoughtful rebuttal from the outer ring.32

Further, the General Assembly did not subject Assembly Bill 7 to substantial public input and review, despite its importance for the fundamental right to vote in Wisconsin. In contrast, when considering the much more limited voting bill in 2005, with fewer provisions than Act 23, the General Assembly held five public hearings, compared to only two for Act 23 in 2011.33

31Id.. 32 Transcript of State Senate Floor Session, May 19, 2011, p. 31, l. 9-16, 22, p. 32, l. 1-7. 33 Wisconsin State Legislature, 2005-2006 Session, Senate Bill 42, Http://Docs.Legis.Wisconsin.Gov/2005/Proposals/Sb42 & Assembly Bill 63, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab63. These were companion bills for voter photo ID requirements for voting. 2011-2012 Session Assembly Bill 7, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/ab7; Senate Bill 6, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/sb6. These were companion bills for what became Act 23.

24 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 27 of 74

In the end, the student identification provisions of Assembly Bill 7 were so poorly drafted that they created considerable confusion. It was unclear initially, for example, whether student IDs from Wisconsin’s technical colleges were authorized for voting under the bill. After ruling that such IDs could not be used for voting, the GAB reversed course and finally decided in November 2015 that such IDs would be acceptable for voting. There was also confusion over whether colleges and universities could add stickers to their IDs to conform them to the law’s requirement. In September 2015, the GAB ruled that such stickers would be acceptable.34

Regarding substantive deviations, as noted above, no other state at the time that Assembly Bill 7 was passed or through the present matched the highly restrictive requirements for student IDs enacted by the Wisconsin state legislature (nor would any such restrictions have made sense as, just like they did in Wisconsin, similar restrictions would likely have wholly undercut the usefulness of allowing student IDs in the first place). It is also worth reiterating that the restrictive provisions for student identification were part of a broad package of restrictive laws passed by Republicans after they gained full control of state government after the 2010 elections. This spate of legislation is unprecedented nationwide. It exceeds in magnitude even of the voting and registration legislation adopted by North Carolina in 2013 that made national headlines.35 Unlike Wisconsin, moreover, North Carolina revised its voter photo ID from strict to non-strict by providing voters lacking an acceptable photo ID the opportunity to vote through an affidavit citing a “reasonable impediment” to obtaining such identification. As noted above, the Wisconsin General Assembly declined to enact such a proposed “reasonable impediment” alternative to the photo ID requirement in their state.

Amendments to Ease the Burdens of Act 23 on Students:

The state legislature not only ignored Director Kennedy’s recommendations with respect to the restrictions on student IDs, but also voted down along party lines numerous amendments designed to ease Act 23’s burdens on students specifically and on citizens of Wisconsin generally, demonstrating, at least in part, the legislature’s intention to make it harder for students and, more broadly, young voters, to vote. Examples include:36

Assembly Amendment 6. The department shall operate temporary or mobile examining stations, during the period specified in sub. (2), on the campus of each university or college in this state that is accredited, as defined in s. 39.30 (1) (d), including any technical college, at which the department shall receive applications and issue operator's licenses under ch. 343 and identification cards under s. 343.50 or driving receipts under s. 343.11 and identification card receipts under s. 343.50 (1) (c).

34 “Wisconsin Voting-Related Decisions on Student IDs Touch Off Firestorm,” Pioneer Press, Nov. 11, 2015, https://www.twincities.com/2011/11/08/wisconsin-voting-related-decisions-on-student-ids-touch-off-firestorm/. 35 35 See, North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 182 F. Supp. 3d 320 (2016). 36 Wisconsin State Legislature, 2011-2012, Assembly Bill 7, Https://Docs.Legis.Wisconsin.Gov/2011/Proposals/Ab7. Several Of These Rejected Assembly Amendments Were Also Offered And Rejected In The State Senate And Will Not Be Repeated.

25 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 28 of 74

(2) Examining stations under sub. (1) shall be operated on any campus specified in sub. (1) when any election is held in the county where the campus is located and shall be open for business until at least 9 p.m. on each weekday during the week of the election and the week immediately preceding the election and after the election until the deadline described in s. 6.97 (3) (b). At these examining stations, the department shall provide priority service to applicants seeking identification for voting.

Assembly Amendment 12. No form of proof of residence or identification presented by an individual under this chapter is considered deficient solely because the individual is homeless, a renter, or a student, or because the individual resides in transitional housing.

Assembly Amendment 23. Substitute for the student ID requirements: An unexpired identification card issued by a university or college in this state that is accredited, as defined in s. 39.30 (1) (d), or by a technical college created under ch. 38. (emphasis added)

Assembly Amendment 26. If an individual is a student at a university, college, or technical college in this state and is not able to present any of the documents specified in pars. (a) to (f), an affidavit in the form prescribed by the board specifying the individual’s name and address, affirming the individual's identity and stating that this is the address of the individual's residence.

Assembly Amendment 32. Substitute for student proof of residence: if the elector presents student identification under s. 5.02 (6m) (f), have his or her residence corroborated by another elector of the municipality in the manner provided in par. (d) 1r.

Assembly Amendment 50. Add to student residency requirement: Any form of proof of residence specified in s. 6.34 (3).

Amendments to Ease Generally the Burdens of Act 23:

Assembly Amendment 5. At least one examining station in each county shall be open for business on each Saturday and until at least 9 p.m. on at least one other day of each week. Examining stations in each county where any election is held shall be open for business until at least 9 p.m. on each weekday during the week of the election and the week immediately preceding the election and after the election until the deadline described in s. 6.97 (3) (b), and the department shall, during this period, provide priority service to applicants seeking identification for voting.

26 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 29 of 74

Assembly Amendment 18. Add to the list of authorized IDs, A driver's license issued by another state in the United States.

Assembly Amendment 24. If an individual is not able to present any of the documents specified in pars. (a) to (f), an affidavit in the form prescribed by the board specifying the individual’s name and address, affirming the individual’s identity and stating that this is the address of the individual’s residence.

Senate Amendment 4: If an individual is not able to present any of the documents specified in pars. (a) to (f), an affidavit in the form prescribed by the board specifying the individual’s name and address, affirming the individual’s identity and stating that this is the address of the individual’s residence. The affidavit shall include the following statement: ‘I am aware that falsification of the information in this affidavit is punishable as a Class H felony.’

Senate Amendment 15: No later than 14 days after the effective date of this subsection, the government accountability board shall post on the Internet not more than 2 pages of material succinctly summarizing all requirements for electors to register and to vote, including absentee balloting requirements, that are affected by this act and shall update the posting periodically as needed to maintain its usefulness. The posting shall have a Flesch readability score of 55 or higher.

Senate Amendment 29: “Conform,” when used with reference to the name of an individual that appears on proof of identification, includes, but is not limited to, a substantially similar name, a nickname, initials substituted for the first or middle name, a misspelled name, a shortened or informal form of a name, a slightly erroneous version of a name, a name that appears to contain a transposition error, and a name that includes or excludes a suffix or hyphenation that should or should not appear.

VI. Discriminatory Effects of Student Voter Photo ID Restrictions and Related Legislation

As enacted by the state legislature, after rejecting numerous ameliorative amendments, the student ID restrictions were so restrictive that officials of the GAB commented upon the unfair treatment of students. As noted above, the resolution passed by the Board of Regents had indicated that students were not likely to possess alternative forms of identification. This deficiency would be especially although not uniquely true of out-of-state students who would be less likely to possess Wisconsin driver’s licenses or other Wisconsin DMV photo identification. According to student headcount statistics from the University of Wisconsin System, of a headcount of 175,541 U.S. students in the system in academic year 2010-2011, 33,033 were from other states.37 This

37 University of Wisconsin System, “Student Statistics , Fall 2010-11 Headcount Enrollment by Geographic Origin” https://pollux.uwsa.edu/PRODUCTION/ssbreports/index.php/HeadCountReports/getSingleYearReportByInstGeograph icOrigin/single/pdf/R_B104_tot/201011/0.

27 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 30 of 74

number does not include public technical colleges or private colleges and universities in Wisconsin. The private Marquette University, for example, the state’s large private not-for-profit institution, enrolled 7,948 U.S. undergraduates in 2010, 59 percent of whom, or 4,689 students, were from out of state.38 Updated enrollment data for the University of Wisconsin system for 2017 show an out-of-state enrollment of 37,735. Updated data for Marquette University shows that of a total enrollment of 8,281 undergraduate US students, 70 percent or 5,796 students were from out-of-state. 39

On November 11, 2011, Melissa Hongisto, Deputy Clerk and Elections Specialist for the Green Bay suburb of Suamico emailed to Diane Lowe, Lead Election Specialist at the GAB, that the especially restrictive ID requirement for students “seems unfair, if voter fraud does indeed occur, it occurs across the board not just with students … I’m just sayin’!!” In response, Lowe added, “And it’s the fact that the legislature deliberately placed an extra burden on college, university and tech school students for proof of residence.40

In another email, Hongisto wrote,

We are only looking at it for expiration, picture ID, and if they resemble the picture. Passports are the same, I do not have one but to my understanding no address is on it. So I wonder why the college ID is required to? … But you can see my dilemma? I feel the true interpretation is that you are only looking to see they are resembling the person on the ID and that the same reasonably matches. So why do the students have separate requirements, it makes it seem as if they feel students are more likely to run around voting at several locations. … The bottom line is that the legislature has put an extra burden on students by requiring ‘stuff’ in addition to the student ID to register and to vote. (emphasis added)41

These assessments for student voters and student IDs are consistent with a federal court’s statement on the photo ID law as a whole. In July 2016, Federal District Court Judge James G. Peterson ruled on various challenges by One Wisconsin Institute to fifteen new voting laws and provisions. In reviewing the evidence presented by both plaintiffs and defendants in the litigation, the court concluded that, “The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence. The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine

38 Marquette University, Common Data Set, 2010-2011, https://www.marquette.edu/oira/documents/MU- CDS-1011-Final.pdf. 39 University of Wisconsin System, Fact Book, 2017-2018, https://www.wisconsin.edu/download/publications(2)/Fact-Book.pdf ; Marquette University, Common Data Set, 2018- 2019, https://www.marquette.edu/oira/documents/MU-CDS-1920-Final.pdf.. 40 Two Emails: Melissa Hongisto to Diane Lowe and Lowe to Hongisto, Nov. 11, 2011, Subject: Technical College Ids On GAB Agenda. 41 Email, Hongisto to Lowe, Nov. 8, 2011, Subject: Technical College Ids On GAB Agenda.

28 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 31 of 74

rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease.”42

The court also invalidated as unconstitutional 9 provisions of new Wisconsin law including two related to student photo IDs:

(1) “The requirement that ‘dorm lists’ to be used as proof of residence include citizenship information is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

(2) The prohibition on using expired, but otherwise qualifying, student IDs is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Note that this did not change the requirement that the expiration day appear on the face of the student ID card, which the district court did not consider.)43

The court ruled that “The purported justifications for these laws [among others] do not justify the burdens they impose.” 44 While these provisions are not challenged here and the restrictions on student IDs were not considered by the court in One Wisconsin, these findings help demonstrate that the legislature was passing laws in an effort to burden young, student voters.

In 2016, for the first time in a Wisconsin statewide general election, voter photo identification requirements came into effect. Despite the easing of some restrictions under the One Wisconsin injunction, other provisions of photo voter ID uniquely burdensome to students⸺i.e., the restrictions discussed herein⸺remained in place. In addition, many institutions of higher education did not have student identification cards that conformed to the provisions of Act 23, a fact that, as noted above, was known to the state legislature at the time it passed the law. According to the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, as late as October 2018, “[o]f the 13 University of Wisconsin four-year campuses, only four provide campus-issued student IDs that are compliant for voting. The other nine campuses, including UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee, failed to qualify under the guidelines set by the voter ID law.”45

As demonstrated below, in the presidential election of 2016, the student and young person turnout in Wisconsin plummeted as compared to 2012. In contrast, young person and student turnout rose nationwide between these two presidential elections. And in Wisconsin, the sharp turnout decline for young persons far exceeded the modest decline for older persons. In addition, the differentials between Wisconsin and the nation for young person turnout from 2012 to 2016 does

42 One Wis. Inst., Inc. V. Thomsen, 198 F. Supp. 3d 896, 903 (W.D. Wis. 2016). 43 Id. at 904. 44 Id.. The District Court’s ruling has been appealed to the 7th Circuit, which has yet to rule, so that the Court’s orders remain in effect. 45 Cameron Smith, “Voting Groups Look To Help Students, People Of Color, Elderly Be Ready For The Ballot,” Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Oct. 1, 2018, https://www.wiscontext.org/wisconsins-voter-id- law-has-created-confusion-and-hurdles.

29 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 32 of 74

not emerge for the elections of 2008 and 2012, when the restrictive student ID requirements in Wisconsin were not in effect for either presidential years.46

As indicated in Table 5 and Chart 5, according to the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, the turnout of young people aged 18 to 24 increased nationally by 1.8 percentage points and 4.3 percent between the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016. In contrast, the turnout of this age group in Wisconsin declined by 8.9 percentage points and 15.9 percent. As additionally indicated in Table 6 and Chart 6, as compared to this sharp decline in turnout among young persons in Wisconsin, turnout among persons aged 25 and greater declined by only a modest 2.4 percentage points and 3.2 percent.

Further, as indicated in Chart 7 the large difference in the turnout of citizens aged 18 to 24 between Wisconsin and the nation for the 2012 presidential election narrowed substantially in 2016. According to the data reported in Chart 7, in 2012 the Wisconsin turnout of this age group was 14.8 percentage points and 35.9 percent higher than the national turnout. However, in 2016 the percentage point gap had diminished to 4.1 percentage points and the percent gap to 10 percent.

The sharp turnout differential for persons aged 18-24 between Wisconsin and the nation between the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016 was not manifest for the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, when Wisconsin’s restrictive student identification requirements were not in effect. In fact, as indicated in Table 7 and Chart 8, the comparison between young person turnout in Wisconsin and the nation between 2008 and 2012 is the opposite of the pattern between 2012 and 2016. Although turnout of persons aged 18 to 24 declined between 2008 and 2012, both for the nation and Wisconsin, the declined for Wisconsin is far less than for the nation. Nationally, turnout declined between 2008 and 2012 by 7.3 percentage points and 15.1 percent. In Wisconsin, however, turnout was relatively constant between these two presidential years, declining by only 1.5 percentage points and 2.6 percent. Further, as indicated by Chart 8, the differential in turnout between Wisconsin and the nation was greater in 2008 than in 2012. Again, this is the opposite of the pattern disclosed in Chart 7 for turnout differentials in 2012 compared to 2016.

The survey of student voting by the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education documents that while student turnout nationally rose by 3 percentage points and 6.7 percent between 2012 and 2016, student turnout declined sharply in Wisconsin. The survey found that “Georgia, Wisconsin, and Mississippi had the largest decreases, on average.” In Wisconsin, 12 of 15 institutions of higher education surveyed experienced turnout declines from 2012 to 2016, ranging from -0.6 percent to - 11.0 percent, with a mean of -3.6 percent.47

46 Presidential elections years when every state has the same top of the ticket contest provide the most reliable turnout estimates across states. In midterm election years, the top of the ticket contests will vary from state to state. Although many factors can drive turnout, the analysis below provides several controls to isolate the effects of Wisconsin’s restrictive student ID requirements, including Wisconsin to national comparisons, age 18-24 and age 25+ comparisons within Wisconsin, and comparisons of turnout changes for young people between 2012 and 2016 and 2008 and 2012. The analysis also includes independent studies of both young persons aged 18 to 24 and students only. 47 Institute for Democracy and Higher Education, Tufts University, “Democracy Counts: A Report on U.S. College and University Student Voting,” https://idhe.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/NSLVE%20Report%202012-2016-

30 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 33 of 74

Although reports for individual institutions in Wisconsin are confidential, four institutions did authorize the release of data showing changes in student turnout from the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016. The University of Wisconsin-Madison, the state’s largest university with a 2016 enrollment of 40,514, had a turnout decline of -4.3 percentage points between these two elections. Turnout changes at the three other institutions were -3.9 percentage points at Madison Area Technical College with an enrollment of 16,099, -6.6 percentage points of the University of Wisconsin-Superior with an enrollment of 2,469 and -4.1 percentage points at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside with an enrollment of 4,279.48

Although not all decrease in turnout can be attributed to the restrictions on student voter ID, the controls included in the analysis indicate that at least some of this decline cannot be explained by any other factor than those restrictions.

092117%5B3%5D.pdf; NSLVE Data Tool, “Student Voting 2012-2016 Nationwide,” https://idhe.tufts.edu/nslve/nslve- data-portal. 48 Institute for Democracy and Higher Education, Tufts University, NSLVE, 2012 & 2016 Campus Report, https://morgridge.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/08/2012-and-2016-NSLVE-Report-University-of- Wisconsin-Madison_Final.pdf; https://www.allinchallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/Madison-Area-Technical-College- NSLVE-2016.pdf https://www.allinchallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/University-of-Wisconsin-Parkside-NSLVE- 2016.pdf https://www.allinchallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/University-of-Wisconsin-Superior-NSLVE-2016.pdf.

31 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 34 of 74

TABLE 5 TURNOUT DIFFERENCES CITIZENS POPULATION 18-24 YEARS-OLD, NATIONAL COMPARED TO WISCONSIN 2012 TO 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Area % Citizen % Citizen Percentage Percent Difference Turnout 2012 Turnout 2016 Point Difference 2016-2012 2016-2012

United States 41.2% 43.0% +1.8 Percentage +4.4% Percent Points

Wisconsin 56.0% 47.1% -8.9 Percentage -15.9 Percent Points

Sources: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2012, Table 4C, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-568.html, & 2016, Table 4C, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and- registration/p20-580.html.

32 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 35 of 74

CHART 5 TURNOUT DIFFERENCES CITIZENS POPULATION 18-24 YEARS-OLD, NATIONAL COMPARED TO WISCONSIN 2012 TO 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

60.00% 56.00%

50.00% 47.10%

43.00% 41.20%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% UNITED STATES WISCONSIN

2012 TURNOUT 2016 TURNOUT

33 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 36 of 74

TABLE 6 TURNOUT DIFFERENCES CITIZENS POPULATION 18-24 YEARS-OLD, IN WISCONSIN COMPARED TO 25+ YEARS-OLD, 2012 TO 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Age Group % Citizen % Citizen Percentage Percent Difference Wisconsin Turnout 2012 Turnout 2016 Point Difference 2016-2012 2016-2012

18-24 Years- 56.0% 47.1% -8.9 Percentage -15.9 Percent Old Points

25+ Years- 76.1% 73.7% -2.4 Percentage -3.2 Percent Old Points

Sources: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2012, Table 4C, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-568.html, & 2016, Table 4C, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and- registration/p20-580.html.

34 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 37 of 74

CHART 6 TURNOUT DIFFERENCES CITIZENS POPULATION 18-24 YEARS-OLD, IN WISCONSIN COMPARED TO 25+ YEARS-OLD, 2012 TO 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

80.0% 76.1% 73.7%

70.0%

60.0% 56.0%

50.0% 47.1%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% AGE 18-24 AGE 25+

2012 TURNOUT 2016 TURNOUT

35 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 38 of 74

CHART 7 TURNOUT CITIZENS 18-24 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN U.S. & WISCONSIN COMPARED, 2012 AND 2016 49

40.0%

35.9%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

14.8% 15.0%

10.0% 10.0%

4.1% 5.0%

0.0% PERCENTAGE PERCENT POINT TURNOUT TURNOUT DIFF. DIFF. US V. WI US V. WI

2012 2016

49 Sources: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2012, Table 4C, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-568.html & 2016, Table 4C, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-580.html.

36 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 39 of 74

TABLE 7 TURNOUT DIFFERENCES CITIZENS POPULATION 18-24 YEARS-OLD, NATIONAL COMPARED TO WISCONSIN 2008 TO 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Area % Citizen % Citizen Percentage Percent Difference Turnout 2008 Turnout 2012 Point Difference 2012-2008 2012-2008

United States 48.5% 41.2% -7.3 Percentage -15.1% Percent Points

Wisconsin 57.5% 56.0% -1.5 Percentage -2.6 Percent Points

Sources: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2012, Table 4C, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-568.html; & 2016, Table 4C, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and- registration/p20-580.html.

37 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 40 of 74

CHART 8 TURNOUT CITIZENS 18-24 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN U.S. & WISCONSIN COMPARED, 2008 AND 2012 50

40.0%

35.9%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0% 18.6%

14.8% 15.0%

9.0% 10.0%

5.0%

0.0% PERCENTAGE PERCENT POINT TURNOUT TURNOUT DIFF. DIFF. US V. WI US V. WI

2008 2012

50 Sources: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008, Table 4C, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2008/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-562-rv.html & 2012, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2012/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-568.html.

38 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 41 of 74

VII. CONTEMPORANEOUS VIEWPOINTS BY DECISION-MAKERS AND OTHER RELEVANT PARTIES: DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATORY INTENT

As recognized by the Supreme Court in the Arlington Heights case, unambiguous statements of discriminatory intent are rare. Nevertheless, they are present in the history surrounding Act 23 and the passage of the student voter ID restrictions.

For example, long-serving Republican State Senator Dale Schultz, who had earlier voted for Act 23, later said that this Act and other measures limiting voting and registration adopted by his Republican colleagues were aimed at suppressing votes, not deterring fraud or serving any other good-government purpose. In a March 2014 interview on Radio 92.1, Schultz said, “in the spirit of the champion of the 1957 Voting Rights Act, I have been trying to send the message that we are not encouraging voting, we are not making voting easier in any way, shape or form with these bills. Back in 1957 with the leadership of president Dwight Eisenhower, Republicans were doing that, and that makes me sad frankly.” He said, “I am not willing to defend them anymore … It’s just, I think, sad when a political party, my political party, has so lost faith in its ideas that it’s pouring all of its energy into election mechanics . . . We should be pitching as political parties our ideas for improving things in the future rather than mucking around in the mechanics and making it more confrontational at the voting sites and, you know, and trying to suppress the vote.”51

With respect to the photo voter ID bill for which he had voted, Schultz said, “It is all predicated on some belief there is a massive fraud or irregularities, something my colleagues have been hot on the trail of for the last three years and have failed miserably at demonstrating.”52

Leading Republicans in the state also admitted that Wisconsin’s photo voter ID law helps Republicans win elections. During the debates over photo voter ID in 2011, Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said, “If we win this battle, certainly what you’re going to find is that President Obama will have a much more difficult time winning the state of Wisconsin.”53

In testimony presented at the trial of One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, former Republican aide Todd Allbaugh testified about the how Republicans at a closed-door meeting that he attended welcomed photo voter ID prior to its final adoption in 2011 for providing an advantage for their party. Allbaugh testified that in making the case for this legislation, Republican State Senator Mary Lazich referenced the advantage accruing to Republicans, with specific mention of students. He testified that she “got up out of her chair and hit her fist or her finger on the table and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got to think about what this would mean for the neighborhoods around Milwaukee and the college campuses.’” He testified that then State Senator Grothman added, “What I’m concerned about here

51 The Devil's Advocates Radio Talk Show, With Guest Senator Dale Schultz, Veritext National Court Reporting Company, pp. 3-6. 52 Ibid. p. 7. 53 Robert Lange, “Wisconsin Republicans Target Voter Fraud Within Universities,” Badger Herald, Apr. 25, 2011, p. 1; https://badgerherald.com/opinion/2011/04/25/wisconsin-republicans/.

39 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 42 of 74

is winning, and that’s what really matters here. . . . We better get this done quickly while we have the opportunity.”54

Prior to the 2016 elections, Republican U.S. Representative Glenn Grothman said, “Well, I think Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up. And now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well.” After Trump narrowly won Wisconsin in 2016, the Republican Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said in a radio interview: “We battled to get voter ID on the ballot for the November ’16 election. How many of your listeners really honestly are sure that Sen. [Ron] Johnson was going to win reelection or President Trump was going to win Wisconsin if we didn’t have voter ID to keep Wisconsin’s elections clean and honest and have integrity?” 55 It is important to note the photo voter ID in Wisconsin, including the provisions for student IDs, has remained a matter of controversy through the present, with litigation pending, the GAB working out over time rules and regulations for students IDs, and colleges and universities seeking to develop compliant IDs.

VIII. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR ACT 23

Justifications by Republican backers of Act 23 are also lacking, or misleading, contradictory, and pretextual. Examples follow below.

A. Justifications for Student Voter ID Restrictions

Justifications for the unique restrictions on student photo IDs for voting are largely lacking. Very little was said by Republicans about these restrictions in the limited legislative debates on Assembly Bill 7 and amendments to ease the restrictions were swiftly rejected. It is not surprising that Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature did not offer specific justifications for the many restrictions placed on the use of student IDs, including signature, date of issuance, expiration date, and confirmation of current enrollment. As explained by election specialist Hongisto, the purpose of photo voter ID is to verify that the voters are who they say they are. None of these additional restrictions are necessary for that purpose and most photo ID states (Table 1 above) authorize student IDs for voting without specific restrictions. There is no evidence of problems of student impersonation in any of these states.

However, there is some relevant discussion of the student ID requirements both in emails and in the legislative debates.

54 “Ex-GOP Staffer Says Senators Were 'Giddy' Over Voter ID Law,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 15, 2016, https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/16/exgop-staffer-says-senators-were-giddy-over-voter-id- law/84958526/. 55 David Wright and Eugene Scott, “GOP Congressman: Voter ID Law Will Help Republican Presidential Candidate,” CNN, 6 April 2016, Https://www.Cnn.Com/2016/04/06/Politics/Glenn-Grothman-Voter-Id-Wisconsin- Republican-2016/Index.Html; Ari Berman, “Top Republican Official Says Trump Won Wisconsin Because Of Voter ID Law,” Mother Jones, Apr.16, 2018, Https://Www.Motherjones.Com/Politics/2018/04/Top-Republican-Official- Says-Trump-Won-Wisconsin-Because-Of-Voter-Id-Law/.

40 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 43 of 74

An email sent from staffer Andrew Hanus to Republican Senator Mary Lazich (see above) during the consideration of photo voter ID on March 18, 2011 titled “Voter ID Update,” referenced the requirements considered for student IDs that would be authorized for voting, not registration. Hanus said that after meeting with a staffer in the office of Republican state assembly member Gary Tauchen, that the Assembly is considering “Allowing for student IDs (using a standardized system), but also really tightening up the residency requirement to that out-of-state college students would have to declare residency in Wisconsin if they want to vote here. This would be a rather stringent residency requirement, similar to the one currently used in Idaho.”

In fact, the Idaho requirement referenced in the email is for registration, not voting. (As indicated above, unlike the restrictions that Wisconsin ultimately adopted, Idaho requires for voting only: “A current student identification card, including a photograph, issued by a high school or an accredited institution of higher education, including a university, college or technical school, located within the state of Idaho.” (Idaho Statutes, Title 34, Ch 11, 34-1113). This disconnect shows how advocates of restrictive voting requirements for students were reaching for any justification, however, inapt.56

The scanty attempt by Republicans to justify requirements for authorized student photo IDs is understandable given the severity of these requirements, which far exceed requirements for other photo IDs in Wisconsin’s Assembly Bill 7 and student ID requisites in other states. If Republicans were truly interested in both verifying identity and assuring access to the vote, then they would not have added the restrictions because they were advised that no such compliant IDs existed. In addition, the restrictions for signature, proof of current enrollment, issuance date, and expiration date had nothing to do with proving one’s identity when voting.

Opponents of Act 23 warned of this incongruity between the identification purposes of photo voter IDs and the student ID requirements during the legislative debates. Democratic Senator Dave Hansen said, “It’s going to be very, very difficult for our college students.” Democratic State Senator Robert Jauch followed up by explaining, “So I have an identification card that has my name on it, my picture on it, that tells you who I am. What difference does it make that the card doesn’t have— has a two—was issued more than two years ago? It’s my picture. It’s my name. I’m on the registry. What more are you demanding? There is additional requirement that they show proof of where they live. Mr. President, the fact that there is an extra hoop being required of them confirms the fact that the Republican arguments are bogus, that it’s a hoax that’s being perpetrated on behalf of the people of Wisconsin.” 57

Earlier, in the Joint Finance Committee, Senator Jauch had turned around the Republican argument that if asked most people would say they favored showing an ID proving who you are in order to vote in Wisconsin. “It’s a simple question. Simple answer. The when you—of you ask them do you think that—do you think that students ought to be able to use their photo ID as proof of who

56 Email: Andrew Hanus to State Senator Mary Lazich, 18 March 2011, Subject: Voter ID Update. Transcript of State Senate Floor Session, May 19, 2011, p. 27, l.4-11. 57 Transcript of State Senate Floor Session, 17 May 2011, p. 9, l.14-15, p. 12, l. 19-22, p. 13, l. 1-8.

41 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 44 of 74

they are? You probably get the same 70, 80 percent saying yes. So there is a reason why these provisions [restrictions on student IDs] are in this amendment, and it is to make it harder for students to vote.”58

It is also important to note that in defending the photo voter ID bill that the state legislature passed in 2005 and was vetoed by the governor, Republicans stressed that its purpose was only to verify the voter’s identity, nothing more. In a May 5, 2005 memo sent to all State Senate Republicans, Republican State Senator Joe Leibham, the primary sponsor of the photo voter ID law, said, with emphasis, “This legislation requires a photo ID to verify an individual’s identity! That is it.”59

B. General Justifications: The Common Sense Argument

Proponents of the photo voter ID bill in Wisconsin also claimed that it brought voting in line with other activities that require a photo ID. According to Republican Senator Frank Lasee,

Well, in today’s society, what do we need a photo identification for today? Check out a library book in Milwaukee County, to rent a movie, to buy beer or liquor, to fly in an airplane, to get married, drive a car, sign a contract, cash a check, apply for welfare benefits.60

This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Even though voting, unlike these other activities, is a fundamental right, the 2011 photo voter ID law in Wisconsin actually makes it far more difficult to vote than to conduct any of these other activities. All of the alleged photo ID requirements listed by Senator Lasee could be satisfied, for example, with various forms of government-issued photo IDs that are not acceptable for voting in Wisconsin such as a veteran’s benefits card or a government employee ID.

In addition, nearly all the activities listed by Senator Lasee could be conducted without any form of photo ID:

• Checking out a book in a Milwaukee County library. To obtain full library privileges an individual must present IDs that establish name and address. However, these can be non-photo IDs as well as photo IDs.61

58 Transcript of Joint Finance Committee Meeting, 9 May 2011, p. 15, l. 18-22, p. 16, l. 1-3. Jauch is referring to the Republican substitute amendment that included the various requirements for student IDs. 59 Memo: “Senator Joe Leibham to Senate Republicans,” RE: Background Information on Voter ID Legislation, May 11, 2005, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/related/public_hearing_records/ac_campaigns_and_elections/bills_resolutions/05 hr_ac_ce_sb0042_pt01.pdf. 60 Transcript of State Senate Floor Session, May 19, 2011, p. 27, l. 4-11. 61 Milwaukee County Federated Library System, Getting A Library Card, https://countycat.mcfls.org/selfreg.

42 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 45 of 74

• Renting a movie. There are numerous Redbox locations throughout Wisconsin where you can rent a movie without an ID. You can also sign up online for a Redbox account.62

• Buying beer or liquor. IDs are required only if a purchaser appears to be under the legal drinking age of 21.63

• Flying in an airplane. Unlike Wisconsin’s strict photo voter ID law, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) makes accommodation so that persons can board an airplane without photo identification. As the following statement of TSA policy makes clear, alternative identification can be accepted in lieu of a valid photo ID:

In the event you arrive at the airport without proper ID, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. By providing additional information, TSA has other ways to confirm your identity, like using publicly available databases, so you can reach your flight.64

Moreover, other TSA accommodations enable passengers to board aircraft without any form of identification in their possession. The TSA explains as follows:

In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete a form to include your name and current address, and may ask additional questions to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You may be subject to additional screening.65

• Getting married. Although county practices may vary, under Wisconsin state law a birth certificate, but not a photo ID, is required for obtaining a marriage license.66

• Signing a contract. There is no legal requirement in Wisconsin for a photo ID to sign a contract. Consumers sign contracts all the time without presenting photo ID. As indicated above even a marriage contract does not require a photo ID. A person with power of

62 Redbox Locations in Wisconsin, https://www.redbox.com/locations/wisconsin; https://www.Redbox.Com/Register?Returnurl=%2faccount. 63 Wisconsin Department Of Revenue, “Wisconsin Alcohol Beverage And Tobacco Laws For Retailers,” P. 7, Http://www.Darlingtonwi.Org/Pub_302_Guide_For_Wisc._Alcohol_Bev.Pdf. 64 Transportation Security Administration, Frequently Asked Questions, Https://Www.Tsa.Gov/Travel/Frequentlyasked-Questions. 65 Transportation Security Administration, Acceptable Ids, Http://Www.Tsa.Gov/Traveler- Information/Acceptable-Ids. 65 Wisconsin Statutes, 765.08, Http://Docs.Legis.Wisconsin.Gov/Statutes/Statutes/765/08. 66 Wisconsin law requires only that “Each applicant for a marriage license shall present satisfactory, documentary proof of identification.” WI Statutes, Chapter 765, 09 3(a). It does not specific they applicants must present a photo ID.

43 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 46 of 74

attorney can sign a contract for another person; a contract may be executed and signed electronically.67

• Cashing a check. Individuals can cash a check at payday check cashing services in Wisconsin without photo ID and even without an ID through their verification process.68

• Applying for welfare benefits. An applicant for FoodShare in Wisconsin need not submit a photo ID and FoodShare benefit cards do not (currently) include a photo. The Social Security administration also indicates that an applicant for Social Security/Medicare need not submit a photo identification in order to receive benefits.69

C. General Justifications: Voter Fraud

Backers of photo voter ID in Wisconsin claimed that such legislation was needed to stop and deter voter fraud. During the debates over Act 23 in 2011 Republican Senator Leah Vukmir said, “And everyone in the state has the right to vote, but unfortunately there is mischievous and I believe fraudulent activity that takes place all across the state of Wisconsin.” Senator Vukmir had attended the meeting of Republican Senators that discussed the political advantages of the voter ID bill and according to Allbaugh’s testimony was enthusiastic politically at the prospect of enacting the bill.70

As was pointed out by opponents of Act 23 during the 2011 debates, neither Senator Vukmir or any other Republican was able to cite evidence of widespread voter fraud of any kind in Wisconsin or any examples of voter impersonation—the type of fraud targeted by photo voter identification. Democratic Senator Jon Erpenbach said, “And, again, I'm going to ask somebody, somebody who supports this legislation, anybody who supports this legislation to show me the widespread fraud across the state of Wisconsin. Show me where elections are being stolen. Show me. We are not going to see any, Mr. President.” 71 Senator Larson said, “we can’t push to our fears. There was no presentation of—of this proof of widespread fraud, only implications, only hearsay that the senator from the 1st could not substantiate.”72

As noted above, the intensive investigation of allegations of widespread voter impersonation in the 2004 elections turned up no evidence of such fraud. Similarly, multiple investigations of voter fraud in Wisconsin both before and after enactment of Act 23 showed no widespread voter fraud of

67 Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 137. 68 Http://Www.Paydaycheckcashingwi.Com/Payday-Advance-Services. 69 Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, “FoodShare Wisconsin,” January 2013, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lfb/informational_papers/january_2013/0052_foodshare_wisconsin_informationa l_paper_52.pdf,Social Security, Official Social Security Website, “Retirement Planner: What Documents Will You Need When You Apply?” https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/applying5.html. 70 Transcript of State Senate Floor Session, 17 February 2011, p. 3, l. 17-21; “Ex-GOP Staffer Says Senators Were 'Giddy' Over Voter ID Law.” 71 Transcript of State Senate Floor Session, May 17, 2011, p. 7: 16-21. 72 Transcript of State Senate Floor Session, May 19, 2011, p. 31, l. 4-8.

44 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 47 of 74

any kind in Wisconsin and no voter impersonation at all. This includes an investigation by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Moreover, as explained above, even if voter impersonation was an issue in Wisconsin, the restrictions placed on student IDs are still unnecessary for the purpose of the student voter establishing identity.73

Republican backers of voter photo ID also sought to justify their statements that such requirements helped them politically by claiming falsely as they had done in 2005, that it was Democrats not Republicans who committed fraud in elections. Representative Grothman had made clear that in Wisconsin efforts to allegedly prevent voter fraud are aimed exclusively at Democratic voters, which would include minorities and students. According to Allbaugh’s unrefuted testimony, he said: “Well, here’s the thing . . . I fundamentally believe Democrats cheat, OK? I do. And I don’t believe our side does.”74

Republican backers of voter photo ID requirements have not bolstered their justifications for the voter photo ID requirements over time.

D. General Justifications: Election Integrity and Confidence

Absent documented examples of voter impersonation at the polls, backers of Wisconsin’s photo voter ID law said that the bill was needed to uphold voter confidence in the integrity of the ballot in Wisconsin. In support of Act 23, Republican State Senator Joe Leibham said, “the reason behind this photo ID bill and the bill in general is to move forward constitutionally sound provisions relating to photo ID and other election reform measures that are going to do just that. They are going to add additional reasonable safeguards to our election process that will ensure the integrity of the votes that take place here in the state of Wisconsin while instilling a greater degree of confidence in the state of Wisconsin.”75

Yet neither Senator Leibham nor any other backer of Act 23 could cite a crisis of confidence regarding elections in Wisconsin or a lack of election integrity. To the contrary, as indicated above, Wisconsin was a national leader in voter turnout and the administration of elections. Likewise, as indicated above, there was near universal satisfaction among Wisconsin voters about their voting experience.76

73 News21, “Election Fraud In America: Wisconsin,” 21 August 2012, https://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/; Joshua Levitt, A Comprehensive Investigation of Voter Impersonation Finds 31 Credible Incidents Out of One Billion Ballots Cast, Washington Post, Aug. 6, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation- finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/; Heritage Foundation, Voter Fraud Cases, Wisconsin, https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=WI&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24493. 74 “Ex-GOP Staffer Says Senators Were 'Giddy' Over Voter ID Law.” 75 Transcript of State Senate Meeting, May 9, 2011, p. 36, l. 20-22, P. 37, l. 1-7. 76 Op Cit., note 9.

45 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 48 of 74

Backers of Act 23 also failed to show a relationship between the enactment of such laws and public confidence in ballot integrity. To the contrary, a study by then-MIT professor Stephen Ansolabehere and then-Columbia University professor Nathaniel Persily⸺available at the time of enactment of Wisconsin’s photo voter ID law⸺found that there was no relationship between the adoption of stricter voter ID laws and public beliefs about the existence of fraud in the election system. The two analysts concluded that:

The use of photo identification requirements bears little correlation to the public’s beliefs about the incidence of fraud. The possible relation of such beliefs to participation appears even more tenuous. This lack of empirical support leads us to conclude that, at least in the context of current American election practices and procedures, public perceptions do not provide a firm justification for voter identification laws.77

Indeed, far from building public confidence in the integrity of Wisconsin’s electoral process, there are good reasons to believe the photo voter ID requirement⸺and specifically the student ID restrictions⸺has precisely the opposite effect. African Americans, Hispanics, students, the poor, and other groups who are disproportionately burdened by the ID requirement and in many instances deterred from voting as a result are likely to have less rather than more confidence in the fairness of Wisconsin elections. Moreover, GAB Director Kennedy warned that unjustified claims of widespread voter fraud used to justify the photo voter ID requirement could well cause voters to distrust the integrity of the election system when there is no basis for doing so. In response to claims by some Wisconsin legislators of significant voter fraud, he emphasized that,

Speaking frankly on behalf of our agency and local election officials, absent direct evidence, I believe continued unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud tend to unnecessarily undermine the confidence that voters have in election officials and the results of the election. I hope that, as elected officials, you would agree that there is little benefit in promoting unsupported allegations questioning the credibility of the election process and the work of local clerks and election inspectors.78

E. General Justifications: Conformity With Other States

Decisionmakers insisted many times that Act 23 brought Wisconsin into conformity with practices in most other states of the union. Yet Wisconsin had achieved distinction in voter turnout and election administration by not conforming to practices in other states, but by having better, more inclusive practices than other states. For example, Wisconsin was one of very few states at

77 Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily, “Vote Fraud In The Eye Of The Beholder: The Role Of Public Opinion In The Challenge To Voter Identification Requirements,” Harvard Law Review 121 (2008). p. 1760, Https://Www.Harvardlawreview.Org/Wp-Content/Uploads/Pdfs/Ansolabehere_Persily.Pdf. 78 Letter From Kevin J. Kennedy To State Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald. July 13, 2012.

46 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 49 of 74

the time to provide voters the option for same day registration. Same day registration is one of the proven practices that functions to expand voter turnout.79

In contrast, Act 23 deviated from this history in all ways not only placing Wisconsin out of line with other states, but also making it less inclusive than it had been before. Wisconsin’s new photo voter ID law brought the state far out of line with every other state in the nation. At the time of Wisconsin’s enactment of its voter photo identification law, only two other states had in place strict voter ID measures⸺Georgia and Indiana. In addition, unlike Georgia and Indiana, Wisconsin in 2011 did not broadly authorize for voting the use of government issued IDs. Instead, it excluded or restricted various categories of government issued IDs, such as government employee IDs, making it unique among all states. In addition, at the time of its adoption of the 2011 law no other state had in place a requirement that a copy of a photo identification must be submitted with an absentee ballot application.

Most pertinently, however, as discussed above, no other state at the time had mirrored the highly restrictive requirements for student identification.80 And, indeed, no other state has done so since. See Table 1.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

When Republicans gained unified control of state government in Wisconsin they adopted numerous measures designed to achieve partisan advantage. The measures included a photo voter ID law with particularly onerous requirements for students. The restrictions on students IDs were not imposed on any other form of identification in Wisconsin, and they were more restrictive than student ID stipulations in any other state at the time and currently. The restrictions on student IDs were part of an extended package of laws designed to achieve partisan advantage for Republicans that exceeded such efforts anywhere in the nation. These efforts fit with the fact that Wisconsin was a closely divided state between Republicans and Democrats. Even a small diminution in Democratic votes could redound significantly to the benefit of Republicans. Other explanations are not persuasive. The adoption of photo voter ID with especially onerous requirements for the increasingly Democratic voter base of students cannot be otherwise attributed to any evidence of voter impersonation in Wisconsin.

The enactment of burdensome regulations on students followed a sharply rising preference for Democratic candidates among these Wisconsin residents. The Republican majority pushed these regulations through the legislature without thorough vetting and review or even the public input according to the 2005 bill. Republicans rejected along party lines every amendment designed to ease the restrictions on students or more generally on all Wisconsin voters.

79 Allan J. Lichtman, The Embattled Vote in America: From the Founding to the Present (Harvard University Press, 2018), p. 241. 80 National Conference of State Legislatures, Voter Identification Requirements, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx.

47 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 50 of 74

The restrictions on student voting took effect in 2016, the first statewide general election in which voter ID was in place. Between the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016 the turnout of students and young people plummeted in Wisconsin while rising nationwide. Moreover, in Wisconsin, the sharp turnout decline for young persons far exceeded the modest decline for older persons in the state.

Republican leaders in Wisconsin provided unusual admissions that their new photo voter ID law would impact vulnerable Democratic base voters such as minorities and students. Justifications for restrictive student ID requirement were scant and misleading. As were justifications more broadly for the adoption of voter photo ID requirements in a state with no history voter impersonation.

An October 2018 editorial in The Badger Herald, the independent student newspaper for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, entitled “Convoluted Student Voting System Discourages Participation,” recounted the unique burden that Wisconsin’s restrictive and confusing photo voter ID law imposed on students:

Between gathering a litany of ID forms and making sure they'll even be accepted, casting ballot is an unnecessarily complicated mess . . . Voting is a right and a privilege which Americans are lucky to exercise. It allows for participation in our democracy and the election of officials who (hopefully) attempt to hear the voices of their constituents. When we go to the polls to vote, it should not have to be with numerous IDs and documents in tow and with fingers crossed that we understand the identification card instructions well enough to meet the requirements of an unnecessary Voter ID law.81

In sum, based on documentary and statistical information, the Arlington Heights guidelines, my experience as a historian and expert witness on voting rights, I reach the following conclusion: After Republicans achieved unified control of Wisconsin state government in 2011 in the wake of rising Democratic support among students and young people, the majority in the legislature enacted an onerous photo voter ID requirement for students with the intent and purpose of achieving partisan advantage through the limitation of voting by this group of Wisconsin citizens.

81 Editorial Board, “Convoluted Student Voting System Discourages Participation,” The Badger Herald, Oct. 6, 2018, https://badgerherald.com/opinion/2018/10/06/editorial-board-convoluted-student-voter-registration-system- discourages-participation/.

48 Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 51 of 74

APPENDIX A Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 52 of 74

Curriculum Vitae

Allan J. Lichtman 9219 Villa Dr. Bethesda, MD 20817

(240) 498-8738 h (202) 885-2411 o

EDUCATION

BA, Brandeis University, Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude, 1967

PhD, Harvard University, Graduate Prize Fellow, 1973

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Teaching Fellow, American History, Harvard University, 1969-73

Instructor, Brandeis University, 1970, quantitative history.

Assistant Professor of History, American University, 1973-1977

Associate Professor of History, American University, 1977-1978

Professor of History, American University, 1979 –

Distinguished Professor, 2011 -

Expert witness in more than 90 redistricting, voting rights and civil rights cases

Associate Dean for Faculty and Curricular Development, College of Arts & Sciences, The American University 1985-1987

Chair, Department of History, American University, 1997- 2001

Regular political analyst for CNN Headline News, 2003-2006

HONORS AND AWARDS

Outstanding Teacher, College of Arts and Sciences, 1975-76

Outstanding Scholar, College of Arts and Sciences, 1978-79

Outstanding Scholar, The American University, 1982-83

1

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 53 of 74

Outstanding Scholar/Teacher, The American University, 1992-93 (Highest University faculty award)

Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Visiting Scholar, California Institute of Technology, 1980-81

American University summer research grant, 1978 & 1982

Chamber of Commerce, Outstanding Young Men of America 1979-80

Graduate Student Council, American University, Faculty Award, 1982

Top Speaker Award, National Convention of the International Platform Association, 1983, 1984, 1987

National Age Group Champion (30-34) 3000-meter steeplechase 1979

Eastern Region Age Group Champion (30-34) 1500 meter run 1979

Defeated twenty opponents on nationally syndicated quiz show, TIC TAC DOUGH, 1981

Listing in Marquis, WHO’S WHO IN THE AMERICA AND WHO’S WHO IN THE WORLD

McDonnell Foundation, Prediction of Complex Systems ($50,000, three years), 2003-2005

Organization of American Historians, Distinguished Lecturer, 2004 -

Selected by the Teaching Company as one of America’s Super Star Teachers.”

Associate Editor, International Journal of Operations Research and Information Systems, 2008 -

Keynote Speaker, International Forecasting Summit, 2007 and 2008

Cited authoritatively by United States Supreme Court in statewide Texas Congressional redistricting case LULAC v. Perry (2006)

Interviews nominated by the Associated Press for the Edward R. Murrow Award for broadcasting excellence.

WHITE PROTESTANT NATION: THE RISE OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT: Finalist for the 2008 National Book Critics Circle Award in general nonfiction.

Elected Member, PEN American Center, 2009

Appointed Distinguished Professor, 2011

FDR AND THE JEWS: Designated for Belknap Imprint of the Harvard University Press,

2

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 54 of 74

reserved for works of special distinction and lasting value; New York Times editors’ choice book for 2013, submitted for Pulitzer Prize 2013, winner of Tikkun Olam Award for Holocaust Studies, winner of National Jewish Book Award in American Jewish Studies, finalist for Los Angeles Times Book Award in History.

THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT: Independent bookstore bestseller, Amazon.com bestseller in several academic categories, Newsweek, best new book releases, April 18, 2017.

Winner of the Alfred Nelson Marquis Life Time Achievement Award for top 5% of persons included in Marquis WHO’S WHO, 2018.

Listed by rise.global as # 85 among 100 most influential geopolitical experts in the world.

SCHOLARSHIP

A. Books

PREJUDICE AND THE OLD POLITICS: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1928 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979)

PREJUDICE AND THE OLD POLITICS: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1928 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2000), reprint of 1979 edition with new introduction.

HISTORIANS AND THE LIVING PAST: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL STUDY (Arlington Heights, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1978, with Valerie French)

ECOLOGICAL INFERENCE (Sage Series in Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 1978, with Laura Irwin Langbein)

YOUR FAMILY HISTORY: HOW TO USE ORAL HISTORY, PERSONAL FAMILY ARCHIVES, AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS TO DISCOVER YOUR HERITAGE (New York: Random House, 1978)

KIN AND COMMUNITIES: FAMILIES IN AMERICA (edited, Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Press, 1979, with Joan Challinor)

THE THIRTEEN KEYS TO THE PRESIDENCY (Lanham: Madison Books, 1990, with Ken DeCell)

THE KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, 1996 EDITION (Lanham: Madison Books, 1996)

THE KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, (Lanham: Lexington Books Edition, 2000)

THE KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, POST-2004 EDITION (Lanham: Lexington Books Edition, 2005)

3

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 55 of 74

THE KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, 2008 EDITION (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008)

WHITE PROTESTANT NATION: THE RISE OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT (New York: Grove/Atlantic Press, 2008)

THE KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, 2012 EDITION (2012, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield)

FDR AND THE JEWS, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Imprint, 2013, with Richard Breitman).

THE KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, 2016 EDITION (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield)

THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT (HarperCollins, April 2017, updated paperback January 2018)

THE EMBATTLED VOTE IN AMERICA: FROM THE FOUNDING TO THE PRESENT (Harvard University Press, 2018)

REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE CASE FOR A SAFER AMERICA (forthcoming, January 28, 2020, St. Martin’s Press)

Monographs:

“Report on the Implications for Minority Voter Opportunities if Corrected census Data Had Been Used for the Post-1990 Redistricting: States With The Largest Numerical Undercount,” UNITED STATES CENSUS MONITORING BOARD, January 2001

“Report on the Racial Impact of the Rejection of Ballots Cast in the 2000 Presidential Election in the State of Florida,” and “Supplemental Report,” in VOTING IRREGULARITIES IN FLORIDA DURING THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, United States Commission on Civil Rights, June 2001

B. Scholarly Articles

"The Federal Assault Against Voting Discrimination in the Deep South, 1957-1967," JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY (Oct. 1969) REF

"Executive Enforcement of Voting Rights, 1957-60," in Terrence Goggin and John Seidel, eds., POLITICS AMERICAN STYLE (1971)

"Correlation, Regression, and the Ecological Fallacy: A Critique," JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY HISTORY (Winter 1974) REF

"Critical Election Theory and the Reality of American Presidential Politics, 1916-1940," AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW (April 1976) REF

4

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 56 of 74

"Across the Great Divide: Inferring Individual Behavior From Aggregate Data," POLITICAL METHODOLOGY (with Laura Irwin, Fall 1976) REF

"Regression vs. Homogeneous Units: A Specification Analysis," SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY (Winter 1978) REF

"Language Games, Social Science, and Public Policy: The Case of the Family," in Harold Wallach, ed., APPROACHES TO CHILD AND FAMILY POLICY (Washington, D. C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1981)

"Pattern Recognition Applied to Presidential Elections in the United States, 1860-1980: The Role of Integral Social, Economic, and Political Traits," PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (with V. I. Keilis-Borok, November 1981) REF

"The End of Realignment Theory? Toward a New Research Program for American Political History," HISTORICAL METHODS (Fall 1982)

"Kinship and Family in American History," in National Council for Social Studies Bulletin, UNITED STATES HISTORY IN THE 1980s (1982)

"Modeling the Past: The Specification of Functional Form," JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY HISTORY (with Ivy Broder, Winter 1983) REF

"Political Realignment and `Ethnocultural` Voting in Late Nineteenth Century America," JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HISTORY (March 1983) REF

"The `New Political History:`Some Statistical Questions Answered," SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY (with J. Morgan Kousser, August 1983) REF

"Personal Family History: A Bridge to the Past," PROLOGUE (Spring 1984)

"Geography as Destiny," REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY (September 1985)

"Civil Rights Law: High Court Decision on Voting Act Helps to Remove Minority Barriers," NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (with Gerald Hebert, November 10, 1986).

"Tommy The Cork: The Secret World of Washington`s First Modern Lobbyist," WASHINGTON MONTHLY (February 1987).

"Discriminatory Election Systems and the Political Cohesion Doctrine," NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (with Gerald Hebert, Oct. 5, 1987)

"Aggregate-Level Analysis of American Midterm Senatorial Election Results, 1974-1986," PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (Dec. 1989, with Volodia Keilis-Borok) REF

5

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 57 of 74

"Black/White Voter Registration Disparities in Mississippi: Legal and Methodological Issues in Challenging Bureau of Census Data," JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLITICS (Spring, 1991, with Samuel Issacharoff) REF

"Adjusting Census Data for Reapportionment: The Independent Role of the States," NATIONAL BLACK LAW JOURNAL (1991)

"Passing the Test: Ecological Regression in the Los Angeles County Case and Beyond," EVALUATION REVIEW (December 1991) REF

Understanding and Prediction of Large Unstable Systems in the Absence of Basic Equations," PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING NATURE (with V. I. Keilis-Borok, Trieste, Italy, 1991).

"The Self-Organization of American Society in Presidential and Senatorial Elections," in Yu. Krautsov, ed., THE LIMITS OF PREDICTABILITY (with V.I. Keilis-Borok, Nauka, Moscow, 1992).

"'They Endured:' The Democratic Party in the 1920s," in Ira Foreman, ed., DEMOCRATS AND THE AMERICAN IDEA: A BICENTENNIAL APPRAISAL (1992).

"A General Theory of Vote Dilution," LA RAZA (with Gerald Hebert) 6 (1993). REF

"Adjusting Census Data for Reapportionment: The Independent Role of the States," JOURNAL OF LITIGATION (December 1993, with Samuel Issacharoff)

"The Keys to the White House: Who Will be the Next American President?," SOCIAL EDUCATION 60 (1996)

"The Rise of Big Government: Not As Simple As It Seems," REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY 26 (1998)

“The Keys to Election 2000,” SOCIAL EDUCATION (Nov/Dec. 1999)

“The Keys to the White House 2000,” NATIONAL FORUM (Winter 2000)

“What Really Happened in Florida’s 2000 Presidential Election,” JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES (January 2003) REF

“The Keys to Election 2004,” SOCIAL EDUCATION (January 2004)

“History: Social Science Applications,” ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL MEASUREMENT (Elseveir, 2006)

“The Keys to the White House: Forecast for 2008,” SPECIAL FEATURE, FORESIGHT: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED FORECASTING 3 (February 2006), 5-9 with

6

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 58 of 74

response: J. Scott Armstrong and Alfred G. Cuzan, “Index Methods for Forecasting: An Application to the American Presidential Elections.”

“The Keys to the White House: Updated Forecast for 2008,” FORESIGHT; THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED FORECASTING 7 (Fall 2007)

“The Keys to the White House: Prediction for 2008,” SOCIAL EDUCATION (January 2008)

“The Keys to the White House: An Index Forecast for 2008,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORECASTING 4 (April-June 2008) REF

“The Updated Version of the Keys,” SOCIAL EDUCATION (October 2008)

“Extreme Events in Socio-Economic and Political Complex Systems, Predictability of,” ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COMPLEXITY AND SYSTEMS SCIENCE (Springer, 2009, with Vladimir Keilis-Borok & Alexandre Soloviev)

“The Keys to the White House: A Preliminary Forecast for 2012” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS & SOCIAL CHANGE (Jan.-March 2010) REF

“The Keys to the White House: Forecast for 2012,” FORESIGHT: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED FORECASTING (Summer 2010)

“The Keys to the White House: Prediction for 2012,” SOCIAL EDUCATION (March 2012)

“The Keys to the White House: Prediction for 2016,” SOCIAL EDUCATION (February 2016)

“The Keys to the White House,” SOCIAL EDUCATION (October 2016)

“The Keys to the White House: Forecast for 2016,” WORLD FINANCIAL REVIEW (January- February 2016)

“Barack Obama” in James M. Banner, Jr., ed., PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT: FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO TODAY (New Press, 2019)

"The Alternative-Justification Affirmative: A New Case Form," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION (with Charles Garvin and Jerome Corsi, Fall 1973) REF

"The Alternative-Justification Case Revisited: A Critique of Goodnight, Balthrop and Parsons, `The Substance of Inherency,`" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION (with Jerome Corsi, Spring 1975) REF

"A General Theory of the Counterplan," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION (with Daniel Rohrer, Fall 1975) REF

7

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 59 of 74

"The Logic of Policy Dispute," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION (with Daniel Rohrer, Spring 1980) REF

"Policy Dispute and Paradigm Evaluation," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION (with Daniel Rohrer, Fall 1982) REF

"New Paradigms For Academic Debate," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION (Fall 1985) REF

"Competing Models of the Debate Process," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION (Winter 1986) REF

"The Role of the Criteria Case in the Conceptual Framework of Academic Debate," in Donald Terry, ed., MODERN DEBATE CASE TECHNIQUES (with Daniel Rohrer, 1970)

"Decision Rules for Policy Debate," and "Debate as a Comparison of Policy Systems," in Robert 2, ed., THE NEW DEBATE: READINGS IN CONTEMPORARY DEBATE THEORY (with Daniel Rohrer, 1975)

"A Systems Approach to Presumption and Burden of Proof;" "The Role of Empirical Evidence in Debate;" and "A General Theory of the Counterplan," in David Thomas, ed., ADVANCED DEBATE: READINGS IN THEORY, PRACTICE, AND TEACHING (with Daniel Rohrer, 1975)

"Decision Rules in Policy Debate;" "The Debate Resolution;" "Affirmative Case Approaches;" "A General Theory of the Counterplan;" "The Role of Empirical Evidence in Debate;" and "Policy Systems Analysis in Debate," in David Thomas, ed., ADVANCED DEBATE (revised edition, with Daniel Rohrer and Jerome Corsi, 1979)

C. Selected Popular Articles

"Presidency By The Book," POLITICS TODAY (November 1979) Reprinted: LOS ANGELES TIMES

"The Grand Old Ploys," NEW YORK TIMES Op Ed (July 18, 1980)

"The New Prohibitionism," THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY (October 29, 1980)

"Which Party Really Wants to `Get Government Off Our Backs`?" CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Opinion Page (December 2, 1980)

"Do Americans Really Want `Coolidge Prosperity` Again?" CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Opinion Page (August 19, 1981)

8

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 60 of 74

"Chipping Away at Civil Rights," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Opinion Page (February 17, 1982)

"How to Bet in 1984. A Presidential Election Guide," WASHINGTONIAN MAGAZINE (April 1982) Reprinted: THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE

"The Mirage of Efficiency," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Opinion Page (October 6, 1982)

"For RIFs, It Should Be RIP," LOS ANGELES TIMES Opinion Page (January 25, 1983)

"The Patronage Monster, Con`t." WASHINGTON POST Free For All Page (March 16, 1983)

"A Strong Rights Unit," NEW YORK TIMES Op Ed Page (June 19, 1983)

"Abusing the Public Till," LOS ANGELES TIMES Opinion Page (July 26, 1983)

The First Gender Gap," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Opinion Page (August 16, 1983)

"Is Reagan A Sure Thing?" FT. LAUDERDALE NEWS Outlook Section (February 5, 1984)

"The Keys to the American Presidency: Predicting the Next Election," TALENT (Summer 1984)

"GOP: Winning the Political Battle for `88," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Opinion Page, (December 27, 1984)

"The Return of `Benign Neglect`," WASHINGTON POST, Free For All, (May 25, 1985)

"Selma Revisited: A Quiet Revolution," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Opinion Page, (April 1, 1986)

"Democrats Take Over the Senate" THE WASHINGTONIAN (November 1986; article by Ken DeCell on Lichtman`s advance predictions that the Democrats would recapture the Senate in 1986)

"Welcome War?" THE BALTIMORE EVENING SUN, Opinion Page, (July 15, 1987)

"How to Bet in 1988," WASHINGTONIAN (May 1988; advance prediction of George Bush's 1988 victory)

"President Bill?," WASHINGTONIAN (October 1992; advance prediction of Bill Clinton's 1992 victory)

"Don't be Talked Out of Boldness," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Opinion Page (with Jesse Jackson, November 9, 1992)

9

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 61 of 74

"Defending the Second Reconstruction," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Opinion Page (April 8, 1994)

"Quotas Aren't The Issue," NEW YORK TIMES, Op Ed Page (December 7, 1994)

"History According to Newt," WASHINGTON MONTHLY (May, 1995)

“A Ballot on Democracy,” WASHINGTON POST Op Ed (November 1, 1998)

“The Theory of Counting Heads vs. One, Two, Three,” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Op

Ed (June 22, 1999)

“Race Was Big Factor in Ballot Rejection, BALTIMORE SUN Op Ed (March 5, 2002)

“Why is George Bush President?” NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER (Dec. 19, 2003)

“In Plain Sight: With the Public Distracted, George W. Bush is Building a Big Government of the Right,” NEWSDAY, (August 7, 2005)

“Why Obama is Colorblind and McCain is Ageless,” JEWISH DAILY FORWARD (June 26,

2008)

“Splintered Conservatives McCain,” POLITICO ( June 24, 2008)

“Will Obama be a Smith or a Kennedy,” NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER (October 17,

2008)

“What Obama Should Do Now,” POLITICO (Jan. 22, 2010)

“Why Democrats Need Hillary Clinton in 2016,” THE HILL, June 11, 2014

“How Corporations Buy Our Government,” THE HILL, July 1, 2014

“Who Rules America,” THE HILL, August 12, 2014

“The End of Civil Discourse?” THE HILL, September 10, 2014

“Pass the Ache Act and Stop Destroying Appalachia?” THE HILL, October 28, 2014

“Democrats Have No One to Blame But Themselves,’ THE HILL, November 7, 2014

10

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 62 of 74

“Donald Trump’s Best Friend: Bernie Sanders,” THE HILL March 10, 2016

“Trump Had One Thing Right About Abortion,” THE HILL, April 1, 2016

“What is so Progressive About Sanders’ Old-Fashioned Protectionism,” April 7, 2016

“Sanders is Only Helping Trump by Staying in Race,” THE HILL, June 30, 2016

“7 Pieces of Advice for Hillary Clinton,” THE HILL, July 25, 2016

“Donald Trump’s Call For Russia To Hack Hillary Clinton’s Email Is A New Low For American Politics — And Maybe A Crime, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, July 27, 2016

“Here’s the Big Speech Clinton Needs to Make,” THE HILL, September 9, 2016

“The Real Story Behind Trump’s Tax Returns,” THE HILL, October 3, 2016

“Trump is Establishment No Matter What He Says,” THE HILL, October 12, 2016

“Trump Brings the Big Lie About Voter Fraud,” THE HILL, October 19, 2016

“How a New Clinton Presidency Will Change American Politics Forever,” THE HILL, October

22, 2016

“The Media is Rigging the Election by Reporting WikiLeaks Emails,” THE HILL, October 26,

2016

“Why James Comey Must Resign Now,” THE HILL, November 3, 2016

“Why Trump is Vulnerable to Impeachment,” USA TODAY, April 18, 2017

“Donald Trump Meet the Real Andrew Jackson,” THE HILL, May 5, 2017

“Why Does Trump’s Voter Fraud Commission Really Wants Your Personal Voter Information,”

THE HILL, August 3, 2017

“Trump is a Lot Closer to Being Impeached, TIME.COM, November 2, 2017

“American Democracy Could be at Risk in the 2018 Elections,” VICE December 20, 2017

“We are One Tantrum Away From Accidental War With North Korea,” THE HILL, January 25,

2018

11

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 63 of 74

“Democrats Can’t Survive on Anti-Trumpism Alone,” TIME.COM, January 28, 2018

“Don’t Expect the Mueller Investigation to End Anytime Soon,” VICE March 21, 2018

“President Trump Faces Political Disaster if he Tries to Fire Mueller,” THE HILL April 5, 2018

“Framers Fail: Voting is a Basic Right But They Didn’t Guarantee it in the Constitution,” USA TODAY, September 26, 2018

Suppressing Voting Rights is as Old as the Republic, But the Tactics Change,” ZOCALO, October 8, 2018

“Voter Fraud Isn’t a Problem in America. Low Turnout Is,” WASHINGTON POST, Made for History, October 22, 2018

“Here are five ways a Democratic US House might try to impeach Donald Trump,” LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, US CENTRE, October 26, 2018.

“The Midterm Results Will Reveal What Drives Voters: A Love or Hate of Trump,” THE GUARDIAN, November 5, 2018

“Unless Democrats Find a 2020 Candidate Like Beto O’Rourke, Trump May Well Be Set to Win” THE DAILY CALLER, November 7, 2018

“Why Nancy Pelosi Should be the Next Speaker, FORTUNE, November 27, 2018

“Its Well Past Time to Restructure the U.S. Senate,” DAILY CALLER, December 4, 2018

“The Seven Crucial Takeaways From William Barr’s Confirmation Hearings,” SPECTATOR USA, January 16, 2019

“Did Democrats Forfeit, 2020” THE HILL March 14, 2019

“Barr’s ‘Summary’ Of The Mueller Report Hardly Vindicates Trump,” DAILY CALLER, March 25, 2019

“Collusion and Obstruction by Trump remain Open Questions after Attorney General’s “Summary” of the Mueller Report,” ARTSFORUM, March 26, 2019

“21 Questions for Robert Mueller,” THE HILL, April 24, 2019

With U.S. Representative Al Green, “Congress Has a Duty to go Through With the Impeachment and Trial of Donald Trump,” THE HILL, May 17, 2019

“If Democrats Want to Beat Trump, They Need to Take off the Gloves in the Primary,” GQ, June 26, 2019

12

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 64 of 74

Allan J. Lichtman “Why Impeachment Of William Sulzer Is Solid Precedent For Donald Trump,” THE HILL, September 9, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “Not Futile To Impeach,” NY DAILY NEWS, September 25, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “Why Impeachment Favors Democrats In The Election,” THE HILL, September 28, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “If Trump is Impeached, Pence Should Go Too,” TPM, October 7, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “Time to Stop Talking ‘Quid Pro Quo,” and Start Looking at Actual Crimes,” THE HILL, November 13, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “Of all the Presidential Impeachment Inquiries, This is the One That Transcends Politics the Most,” POLITICO, November 16, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “Bill Barr’s Dangerous Celebration of Unchecked Presidential Power, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, November 25, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “What Trump Really Wanted From Ukraine Was Not About Enemies,” THE HILL, November 25, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “Pelosi, Schiff Should Take More Time If They Want A Successful Impeachment Effort,” DAILY CALLER, November 29, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “It’s Our Political System, Not Impeachment, That Is Broken. And Only Politics Can Fix It,” POLITICO, December 6, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, The 2010s Were the Decade That Brought Democracy to the Breaking Point, TPM, December 23, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, “Will Roberts Call Balls and Strikes at the Impeachment Trial,” THE HILL, December 30, 2019

Allan J. Lichtman, The Bill Clinton Trial Cannot Serve as the Model for the Donald Trump Trial,” THE HILL, January 8, 2020

Bi-weekly column, THE MONTGOMERY JOURNAL, GAZETTE 1990 - 2013

Election-year column, REUTERS NEWS SERVICE 1996 & 2000

Contributor: THE HILL, 2014-present

D. Video Publication

“Great American Presidents,” The Teaching Company, 2000.

13

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 65 of 74

TEACHING

Ongoing Courses

The History of the U. S. I & II, The Emergence of Modern America, The U. S. in the Twentieth Century, United States Economic History, Historiography, Major Seminar in History, Graduate Research Seminar, Colloquium in U. S. History Since 1865, The American Dream, The Urban-Technological Era, Senior Seminar in American Studies, Seminar in Human Communication.

New Courses: Taught for the first time at The American University

Quantification in History, Women in Twentieth Century American Politics, Women in Twentieth Century America, Historians and the Living Past (a course designed to introduce students to the excitement and relevance of historical study), Historians and the Living Past for Honors Students, How to Think: Critical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Pivotal Years of American Politics, Government and the Citizen (Honors Program), Introduction to Historical Quantification, Public Policy in U. S. History, Honors Seminar in U.S. Presidential Elections, America’s Presidential Elections, What Is America?, Honors Seminar on FDR, Jews, and the Holocaust.

TELEVISION APPEARANCES

More than 1,000 instances of political commentary on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, CBC, CTV, NPR, VOA, and numerous other broadcasting outlets internationally, including Japanese, Russian, Chinese, German, French, Irish, Austrian, Australian, Russian, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, and Middle Eastern television.

Regular political commentary for NBC News Nightside.

Regular political commentary for Voice of America and USIA.

Regular political commentary for America’s Talking Cable Network.

Regular political commentary for the Canadian Broadcasting System.

Regular political commentary for CNN, Headline News

Consultant and on-air commentator for NBC special productions video project on the history of the American presidency.

CBS New Consultant, 1998 and 1999

14

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 66 of 74

Featured appearances on several History Channel specials including The Nuclear Football and The President’s Book of Secrets.

RADIO SHOWS

I have participated in many thousands of radio interview and talk shows broadcast nationwide, in foreign nations, and in cities such as Washington, D. C., New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles and Detroit. My appearances include the Voice of America, National Public Radio, and well as all major commercial radio networks.

PRESS CITATIONS

I have been cited many hundreds of times on public affairs in the leading newspapers and magazines worldwide. These include, among many others,

New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Washington Times, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Christian Science Monitor, Philadelphia Inquirer, Time, Newsweek, Business Week, Le Monde, Globe and Mail, Yomuiri Shimbun, Die Welt, El Mundo, and South China Post, among others.

SELECTED CONFERENCES, PRESENTATIONS, & LECTURES: UNITED STATES

Invited participant and speaker, Bostick Conference on Fogel and Engerman`s TIME ON THE CROSS, University of South Carolina, November 1-2, 1974

"Critical Election Theory and the Presidential Election of 1928," Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association, December 1974

"A Psychological Model of American Nativism," Bloomsberg State Historical Conference, April 1975

"Methodology for Aggregating Data in Education Research," National Institute of Education, Symposium on Methodology, July 1975, with Laura Irwin

Featured Speaker, The Joint Washington State Bicentennial Conference on Family History, October 1975

Featured Speaker, The Santa Barbara Conference on Family History, May 1976

Chair, The Smithsonian Institution and the American University Conference on Techniques for Studying Historical and Contemporary Families, June 1976

Panel Chair, Sixth International Smithsonian Symposium on Kin and Communities in America, June 1977

15

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 67 of 74

"The uses of History for Policy Analysis," invited lecture, Federal Interagency Panel on Early Childhood Research, October 1977

Invited participant, Conference on "Child Development within the Family - Evolving New Research Approaches," Interagency Panel of the Federal Government for Research and Development on Adolescence, June 1978

Commentator on papers in argumentation, Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, November 1978

Commentator on papers on family policy, Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jan. 1979

"Phenomenology, History, and Social Science," Graduate Colloquium of the Department of Philosophy," The American University, March 1979

"Comparing Tests for Aggregation Bias: Party Realignments of the 1930`s," Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association March 1979, with Laura Irwin Langbein

"Party Loyalty and Progressive Politics: Quantitative Analysis of the Vote for President in 1912," Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians, April 1979, with Jack Lord II

"Policy Systems Debate: A Reaffirmation," Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, November 1979

"Personal Family History: Toward a Unified Approach," Invited Paper, World Conference on Records, Salt Lake City, August 1980

"Crisis at the Archives: The Acquisition, Preservation, and Dissemination of Public Documents," Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, November 1980

"Recruitment, Conversion, and Political Realignment in America: 1888- 1940," Social Science Seminar, California Institute of Technology, April 1980

"Toward a Situational Logic of American Presidential Elections," Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, November 1981

"Political Realignment in American History," Annual Meeting of the Social Science History Association, October 1981

"Critical Elections in Historical Perspective: the 1890s and the 1930s," Annual Meeting of the Social Science History Association, November 1982

Commentator for Papers on the use of Census data for historical research, Annual Meeting of the

16

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 68 of 74

Organization of American Historians, April 1983

"Thirteen Keys to the Presidency: How to Predict the Next Election," Featured Presentation, Annual Conference of the International Platform Association, August 1983, Received a Top Speaker Award

"Paradigms for Academic Debate," Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, November 1983

Local Arrangements Chair, Annual Convention of the Social Science History Association, October 1983

"Forecasting the Next Election," Featured Speaker, Annual Convention of the American Feed Manufacturers Association, May 1984

Featured Speaker, "The Ferraro Nomination," Annual Convention of The International Platform Association, August 1984, Top Speaker Award

"Forecasting the 1984 Election," Annual Convention of the Social Science History Association Oct. 1984,

Featured Speaker, "The Keys to the Presidency," Meeting of Women in Government Relations October 1984

Featured Speaker, "The Presidential Election of 1988," Convention of the American Association of Political Consultants, December 1986

Featured Speaker, "The Presidential Election of 1988," Convention of the Senior Executive Service of the United States, July 1987

Commentary on Papers on Voting Rights, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1987.

Commentary on Papers on Ecological Inference, Annual Meeting of the Social Science History Association, November 1987.

Featured Speaker: "Expert Witnesses in Federal Voting Rights Cases," National Conference on Voting Rights, November 1987.

Featured Speaker: "The Quantitative Analysis of Electoral Data," NAACP National Conference on Voting Rights and School Desegregation, July 1988.

Panel Chair, "Quantitative Analysis of the New Deal Realignment," Annual Meeting of the Social Science History Association, Nov. 1989.

17

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 69 of 74

Keynote Speaker, Convocation of Lake Forest College, Nov. 1989.

Featured Speaker, The American University-Smithsonian Institution Conference on the Voting Rights Act, April 1990

Panel Speaker, Voting Rights Conference of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, April 1990

Panel Speaker, Voting Rights Conference of the NAACP, July 1990

Panel Speaker, Voting Rights Conference of Stetson University, April 1991

Panel Chair, Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians, April, 1992

Panel Speaker, Symposium on "Lessons from 200 Years of Democratic Party History, Center for National Policy, May 1992

Olin Memorial Lecture, U.S. Naval Academy, October 1992

Commentator, Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians, April, 1993

Panel presentation, Conference on Indian Law, National Bar Association, April 1993

Feature Presentation, Black Political Science Association, Norfolk State University, June 1993

Feature Presentation, Southern Regional Council Conference, Atlanta Georgia, November, 1994

Master of Ceremonies and Speaker, State of the County Brunch, Montgomery County, February, 1996

Feature Presentation, Predicting The Next Presidential Election, Freedom’s Foundation Seminar on the American Presidency, August 1996

Feature Presentation, Predicting The Next Presidential Election, Salisbury State College, October 1996

Feature Presentation on the Keys to the White House, Dirksen Center, Peoria, Illinois, August, 2000

Feature Presentation on American Political History, Regional Conference of the Organization of American Historians, August 2000

Testimony Presented Before the United States Commission on Civil Rights Regarding Voting Systems and Voting Rights, January 2001

Testimony Presented Before the United States House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee,

18

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 70 of 74

Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 2001

Testimony Presented Before the United States Senate, Government Operations Committee, Regarding Racial Differentials in Ballot Rejection Rates in the Florida Presidential Election, June 2001

Testimony Presented Before the Texas State Senate Redistricting Committee, Congressional Redistricting, July 2003

Testimony Presented Before the Texas State House Redistricting Committee, Congressional Redistricting, July 2003

American University Honors Program Tea Talk on the Election, September 2004

Feature Presentation, The Keys to the White House, International Symposium on Forecasting, June 2006.

Feature Presentation, The Keys to the White House, International Symposium on Forecasting, New York, June 2007.

Keynote Speaker, Hubert Humphrey Fellows, Arlington, Virginia, 2007-2013

Feature Presentation, Forecasting 2008, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 2007

Keynote Speaker, International Forecasting Summit, Orlando, Florida, February 2008.

Feature Presentation on the Keys to the White House, Senior Executive’s Service, Washington, DC, June 2008

Feature Presentation, American Political History, Rockford Illinois School District, July 2008

American University Honors Program Tea Talk on the Election, September 2008

Featured Lecture, Keys to the White House, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, September 2008

Keynote Speaker, International Forecasting Summit, Boston, September 2008

Keynote Lecture, Hubert Humphrey Fellows, Arlington, Virginia October 2008

Featured Lectures, Keys to the White, Oklahoma Central and East Central Universities, October 2008

Bishop C. C. McCabe Lecture, "Seven Days until Tomorrow" American University, October 28,

19

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 71 of 74

2008

Featured Lecture, WHITE PROTESTANT NATION, Eisenhower Institute, December 2008

American University Faculty on the Road Lecture, "Election 2008: What Happened and Why?" Boston, February 2009

Critic Meets Author Session on WHITE PROTESTANT NATION, Social Science History Association, November 2009

American University Faculty on the Road Lecture, "The Keys for 2012" Chicago, April 2010

Keynote Speaker, Hubert Humphrey Fellows, Arlington, Virginia October, 2010, 2011

Panel Participant, Search for Common Ground, Washington, DC, April 2011

Presentation, The Keys to the White House, International Symposium on Forecasting, June 2012

SELECTED CONFERENCES, PRESENTATIONS, & LECTURES: INTERNATIONAL

Featured Speaker, World Conference on Disarmament, Moscow, Russia, November 1986

Delegation Head, Delegation of Washington Area Scholars to Taiwan, Presented Paper on the promotion of democracy based on the American experience, July 1993

Lecture Series, American History, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan, December 2000

Lectures and Political Consultation, Nairobi, Kenya, for RFK Memorial Institute, October 2002

Featured Lectures, US Department of State, Scotland and England, including Oxford University, University of Edinburg, and Chatham House, June 2004

Keynote Speech, American University in Cairo, October 2004

Feature Presentation on the Keys to the White House, University of Munich, June 2008

Featured Lectures, US Department of State, Russia, Ukraine, Slovenia, Austria, and Romania, 2008-2010

Paper Presentation, Fourth International Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Science, Athens, Greece, July 2009

Featured Lectures, US Department of State, India, Korea, and Belgium 2012

Panel Speaker, Economic Forun, Krynica, Poland, 2013

20

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 72 of 74

DEPARTMENTAL AND UNIVERSITY SERVICE

Department of History Council 1973 -

Undergraduate Committee, Department of History 1973-1977

Chair Undergraduate Committee, Department of History 1984-1985

Graduate Committee, Department of History, 1978-1984

Freshman Advisor, 1973-1979

First Year Module in Human Communications, 1977-1979

University Committee on Fellowships and Awards 1976-1978

University Senate 1978-1979, 1984-1985

University Senate Parliamentarian and Executive Board 1978-1979

Founding Director, American University Honors Program, 1977-1979

Chair, College of Arts and Sciences Budget Committee 1977-1978, 1982-1984

University Grievance Committee, 1984-1985

Member, University Honors Committee 1981-1982

College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee 1981-1982

Jewish Studies Advisory Board, 1982-1984

Mellon Grant Executive Board, College of Arts & Sciences, 1982-1983

Chair, College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Colloquium, 1983

Chair, College of Arts and Sciences Task Force on the Department of Performing Arts, 1984-1985

Local Arrangements Chair, National Convention of the Social Science History Association, 1983

Chair, Rank & Tenure Committee of the Department of History, 1981-1982, 1984-1985

Board Member, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, The American University,

21

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 73 of 74

1988-1989

Chair, Graduate Committee, Department of History, 1989 - 1991

Chair, Distinguished Professor Search Committee 1991

Member, College of Arts & Sciences Associate Dean Search Committee, 1991

Board Member, The American University Press, 1991-1995

Chair, Subcommittee on Demographic Change, The American University Committee on Middle States Accreditation Review 1992-1994

Member, Dean's Committee on Curriculum Change, College of Arts and Sciences 1992-1993

Member, Dean's Committee on Teaching, College of Arts and Sciences 1992

Co-Chair, Department of History Graduate Committee, 1994-1995

Vice-Chair, College of Arts & Sciences Educational Policy Committee, 1994-1995

Elected Member, University Provost Search Committee, 1995-1996

Chair, Search Committee for British and European Historian, Department of History, 1996

Department Chair, 1999-2001

CAS Research Committee, 2006-2007

University Budget and Benefits Committee, 2008

Chair, Personnel Committee, Department of History, 2010-11, 2012-13

Chair, Term Faculty Search Committee, Department of History, 2011

OTHER POSITIONS

Director of Forensics, Brandeis University, 1968-71

Director of Forensics, Harvard University, 1971-72

Chair, New York-New England Debate Committee, 1970-71

Historical consultant to the Kin and Communities Program of the Smithsonian Institution 1974-1979

22

Case: 3:19-cv-00955-wmc Document #: 23-4 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 74 of 74

Along with general advisory duties, this position has involved the following activities:

1. directing a national conference on techniques for studying historical and contemporary families held at the Smithsonian in June 1976. 2. chairing a public session at the Smithsonian on how to do the history of one's own family. 3. helping to direct the Sixth International Smithsonian Symposium on Kin and Communities in America (June 1977). 4. editing the volume of essays from the symposium.

Consultant to John Anderson campaign for president, 1980.

I researched and wrote a study on "Restrictive Ballot Laws and Third-Force Presidential Candidates." This document was a major component of Anderson's legal arguments against restrictive ballot laws that ultimately prevailed in the Supreme Court (Anderson v. Celebreeze 1983). According to Anderson's attorney: "the basis for the majority's decision echoes the themes you incorporated in your original historical piece we filed in the District Court."

Statistical Consultant to the George Washington University Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology, 1983

I advised researchers at the Policy Studies Program on the application of pattern recognition techniques to their work on the recovery of communities from the effects of such natural disasters as earthquakes and floods.

Consultant to the New York City Charter Revision Commission, 2000-2006

I analyzed the implications of non-partisan elections for voting rights issues for the Charter Revision Commissions appointed by mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg.

23